G.R. No. 256070 . September 19, 2022
CYNTHIA G. MORENO, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Cynthia G. Moreno, former mayor of Aloguinsan, Cebu, was convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to ten years imprisonment. Her conviction attained finality on June 25, 2019. Subsequently, on December 2, 2020, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Moreno filed a Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest. She prayed to serve her sentence at a farm resort under the supervision of local BJMP or probation officers, citing health considerations and susceptibility to pathogens in a penal facility.
The Sandiganbayan denied the Motion in a Resolution dated December 17, 2020. It found that Moreno failed to provide medical evidence to substantiate her health claims and that her apprehensions about COVID-19 were speculative. The court emphasized that “home care/house arrest” is not a recognized mode of serving sentence under the Rules of Criminal Procedure or any law for prisoners with final convictions. Moreno’s motion for reconsideration was also denied for being filed out of time per the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial, and on the merits, the court distinguished her case from the exceptional grants of house arrest to former presidents.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion to Serve Sentence Under Home Care/House Arrest without conducting a hearing and solely based on procedural and substantive legal grounds.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the Sandiganbayan’s ruling. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the finality of judgment and the prescribed place of incarceration. Upon finality of a conviction, the execution of the sentence must proceed as mandated by law. Articles 78 and 86 of the Revised Penal Code explicitly provide that penalties of prision mayor, such as the one imposed on Moreno, shall be served in the penal establishments designated by law. No statutory provision allows for house arrest based solely on health apprehensions for a convict serving a final sentence.
The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the motions for house arrest by former Presidents Estrada and Arroyo were extraordinary acts of executive clemency or specific court orders under unique circumstances, not judicial precedents creating a general right. Furthermore, the constitutional mandate to promote the right to health (Section 15, Article II) is not self-executing and does not override specific penal laws on the execution of sentences. The Court also agreed that the Sandiganbayan did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration as out of time under applicable procedural guidelines. Since the motion for house arrest lacked legal basis, a hearing was unnecessary; its denial was justified purely on legal grounds. The petition, being a wrongful mode to assail the denial, likewise failed.