GR 173523; (February, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173523 , February 19, 2014
LUCENA D. DEMAALA, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Lucena D. Demaala, the Municipal Mayor of Narra, Palawan, was the accused in multiple criminal cases for violations of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend the Accused pendente lite, which the Sandiganbayan granted in a Resolution dated February 9, 2006, ordering her suspension for ninety days. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, scheduling its hearing for April 26, 2006. The prosecution filed an Opposition to this motion. Subsequently, the prosecution filed a “Manifestation with Motion to Reset the Trial Scheduled on April 26 and 27, 2006,” seeking to reset the scheduled hearing for the continuation of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence (the trial proper) to a later date. The Sandiganbayan granted this motion in an Order dated April 21, 2006, cancelling the trial on April 26 and 27, 2006, and resetting it to August 2 and 3, 2006. However, on May 23, 2006, before the reset August dates, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner claims she was denied due process because her Motion for Reconsideration was denied before it could be heard on the scheduled dates (which she believed were also reset to August 2 and 3, 2006).
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner due process when it issued the May 23, 2006 Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration before the scheduled hearing dates.
RULING
No, the Sandiganbayan did not deny petitioner due process. The Court held that a party who was afforded the opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so cannot later claim deprivation of the right to be heard. The prosecution’s motion to reset specifically sought to reschedule the “trial” for the continuation of the presentation of evidence, not the hearing on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan’s April 21, 2006 Order likewise only reset the trial proper. Petitioner’s counsel should have appeared on April 26, 2006, the original date set for the hearing of her Motion for Reconsideration, to argue the motion. Her failure to do so, based on her mistaken belief that the hearing for her motion was also reset, was at her own peril. Furthermore, the right to be heard does not only mean oral arguments; it can be through pleadings. Petitioner was able to file her Motion for Reconsideration, and the prosecution filed its Opposition, thereby joining the issues. The Sandiganbayan then resolved the motion on its merits, as shown in its detailed Resolution. Therefore, petitioner was afforded due process. The Petition was dismissed.