This resolves the (1) Urgent Petition for Bail dated 19...

/

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYANQuezon City

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. SB-13-CRM-0600

For; Malversation of Public Funds under

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code

-versus-

PEDRO VICENTE C. MENDOZA,Accused.

Present:

QUIROZ, J. ChairpersonCRUZ, J.JACINTO, J.

Promulgated on:

M] 11

X

RESOLUTION

CRUZ, J.

This resolves the (1) Urgent Petition for Bail dated 19September 2019 of accused Pedro Vicente C. Mendoza ("Mendoza")and (2) the Prosecution's Vehement Opposition dated 27 September2019.

In his petition,^ accused Mendoza claims that he is not a flightrisk, and so, he asked the Court to reconsider the cancellation of hisbail and prayed that he be allowed to post additional bail for histemporary liberty. He narrates that in the administrative proceedingbefore the Office of the Ombudsman ("Ombudsman"), he wasdismissed from service after he was found administratively liable forhis failure to account for the cash advance he received to defray theexpenses of the Security Transport Protocol and Liaison ("STPL")Committee for the 39*^ ASEAN Economic Minister's Meeting ("AEM").When he appealed his dismissal before the Court of Appeals ("CA"),the appellate court modified the imposed penalty from dismissalfrom service to suspension from office without pay and other benefitsfor a period of six (6) months. ̂ The Ombudsman moved for

^ Records, Vol. II, pp. 614-6202 Records, Vol. II, pp. 621-630

RESOLUTION

PP vs. Mendoza

Case No. SB-13-CRM-0600

of 4

X

reconsideration of the appellate court's decision but the latter deniedthe same. ̂ Consequently, the matter was elevated before theSupreme Court, which affirmed the CA's decision.'^ Here, he allegedthat the Supreme Court's resolution, affirming the CA's decision, isbinding upon this Court. Therefore, this Court's judgment ofconviction^ contradicted the Supreme Court, as the said decisionoverturned the letter's affirmation of the CA's decision. He states

that he intends to question this Court's decision before the SupremeCourt, and thus, he wants to post his additional bail while his petitionis pending.

The prosecution opposed® the petition, asserting that the sameis mooted under Section 24, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, whichprovides, among others, that bail shall not be allowed after theaccused has commenced the service of his sentence. The

prosecution explains that this Court's judgment of conviction, perDecision^ dated 17 May 2019, has attained finality after accusedMendoza's motion for reconsideration was denied in the Resolution®dated 15 July 2019. Thereafter, the said accused has beencommitted to a prison facility for the service of his sentence. Forthese reasons, obtaining bail for his temporary release is no longerpossible. The prosecution also contends that there is no legal basisfor the accused's allegation that this Court's decision is in conflictwith the Supreme Court's resolution,® upholding the CA's decision.The prosecution points out that this Court's judgment of convictionis not at odds with the findings of the Supreme Court and the CAbecause both affirmed that he violated the laws, rules, andregulations requiring the liquidation of the cash advance.Furthermore, the prosecution clarifies that the Supreme Court'sresolution, which upheld the CA's decision tackled the administrativecase filed against the herein accused, while the proceeding in thisCourt was about his criminal case. Citing jurisprudence, theprosecution avers that a single act may give rise to both criminal andadministrative liability, and the proceedings in both are independentand distinct. Thus, the dismissal of the administrative case cannotbe invoked to abate the criminal case since the quantum of evidencerequired, the procedure observed and the sanctions imposed aredifferent.

® Records, Vol. 11, pp. 633-634" Records, Vol. II, pp. 635-637® Records, Vol. II, pp. 520-539® Records, Vol. II, pp. 717-721^ Supra, footnote 5® Records, Vol. II, pp. 605-607® Supra, footnote 4^°Supra, footnote 2

RESOLUTION

PP vs. Mendoza


of 4

X

Accused Mendoza's petition is without merit.

A reading of the records confirms that accused Mendoza andhis counsel appeared during the promulgation of this Court'sadverse decision on 17 May 2019."''' Despite notice of the judgmentof conviction, said accused only filed his Motion for Reconsiderationof this Court's decision on 11 June 2019.^^ In a Minute Resolutions^dated 15 July 2019, the Court denied his motion for being filed outof time. The Court ruled, thus:

"More so, a closer scrutiny of the records reveals that the presentmotion had been filed out of time. Section 1, Rule X of the 2018

Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan states that a motionfor reconsideration of this Court's decision should be filed within

fifteen (15) calendar days from promulgation of judgment or fromnotice of the final order or judgment. In this case, the accused, whowas present during the promulgation held on 17 May 2019, wasdeemed notified of the Court's adverse decision on said date. Thus,

the accused had fifteen (15) days or until 01 June 2019, within whichto file his motion for reconsideration. However, the last day of filingfell on a Saturday, so the accused had until 03 June 2019, Monday,to file the said motion. As per records, the accused's motion wasonly filed on 11 June 2019, which is beyond the reglementary periodset in the aforementioned rules.

In effect, the belated filing of accused Mendoza's motion forreconsideration rendered the Court's judgment of conviction finaland executory.^'* Thereafter, the Court ordered^^ the cancellation ofhis post-promulgation bond,"*® and a bench warrant of arrest wasissued against him.""^ Subsequently, he was arrested by the CounterIntelligence Division of the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI-CID").''® By virtue of the Mittimus issued by the Court on 18September 2019, received by the Bureau of Correction ("BUCOR")on 20 September 2019, he was committed to the New Bilibid Prisonin Muntinlupa City, where he commenced the service of hissentence.^®

Notably, Section 24, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on CriminalProcedure prohibits the granting of bail after a judgment of convictionhas become final, even more so, after the accused has commenced

" Records, Vol. 11, p. 548-DRecords, Vol. II, pp. 570-591Records, Vol. II, pp. 605-607

^^Id./d.

1® Records, Vol.1^ Records, Vol.1® Records, Vol.1® Records, Vol.2° Id.

pp. 550-551, 561, 563p. 608pp. 613-Bpp. 680-681

RESOLUTION

PP vs. Mendoza


of 4

X - - X

the service of his sentence. The aforementioned provision states;

"Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. - No bail shall beallowed after a judgment of conviction has become final. If beforesuch finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be allowedtemporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or theaccused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his releaseon recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of thecommunity. In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused hascommenced to served sentence.

Here, not only is the judgment of conviction against accusedMendoza final and executory, but he had also commenced theservice of his sentence. Hence, his petition for bail is not allowedand cannot be granted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Pedro VicenteMendoza's Urgent Petition for Bail dated 19 September 2019, ishereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

RpYfJALDQ/P. CRUZAssociate Justice

We Concur:

Associate Justice

^ <

lupoz 1 BAYANI/H. mClNTOChairperson/ / Associate uustice

This resolves the (1) Urgent Petition for Bail dated 19...

Documents

Transcript of This resolves the (1) Urgent Petition for Bail dated 19...