Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 151911] Case Digest

 

Payumo vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 151911

 

Facts:

The petitions stem from the facts of Criminal Case No. 4219 involving a shooting incident that occurred on February 26, 1980 at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon in Sitio Aluag, Barangay Sta. Barbara, Iba, Zambales. A composite team of Philippine Constabulary (PC) and Integrated National Police (INP) units allegedly fired at a group of civilians instantly killing Amante Payumo and wounding Teofilo Payumo, Barangay Captain of Sta. Barbara at Cabatuhan River; and others.

The following were indicted for Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder before the Sandiganbayan: Domiciano Cabigao, Nestor Domacena, and others.

During the trial, the accused interposed the defenses of lawful performance of duty, self-defense, mistake of fact, and alibi. They insisted that the incident was a result of a military operation, and not an ambush as claimed by the prosecution.

Sandiganbayan convicting the accused as co-principals in the crime of Murder with Multiple Frustrated and Attempted Murder.

On January' 11, 1985, the accused filed their Motion for New Trial anchored on the following grounds: (1) Error of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantive rights of the accused; and (2) the accused were denied procedural due process of law. Sandiganbayan denied the accused's Motion for New Trial on the ground that it no longer had any jurisdiction over the case.  SC En Banc also denied the petition for lack of merit on June 4, 1985.

On May 29, 1987, SC rendered its Decision, setting aside the October 5, 1984 Decision of the Sandiganbayan and remanding the case for a new trial. Fifth Division promulgated its judgment convicting the accused of the crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder.

The accused filed their Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial contending that errors of law or irregularities had been committed during and after trial which were prejudicial to their substantive and constitutional rights. Since the Fifth Division could not reach unanimity in resolving the aforesaid omnibus motion, a Special Fifth Division composed of five (5) members of the Sandiganbayan issued the subject Resolution promulgated on October 24, 2001, setting aside the November 27, 1998 Decision and granting a second new trial of the case.

Ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the Sandiganbayan amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for nullifying the November 27, 1998 Decision and granting new trial, the complainants in Criminal Case No. 4219, Edgar Payumo, Reynaldo Ruanto, and others (petitioners) filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or injunction to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with the scheduled hearings for a second new trial.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it granted a new trial of Criminal Case No. 4219.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

A judgment of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be promulgated by reading the judgment or sentence in the presence of the accused and any Justice of the division which rendered the same. Promulgation of the decision is an important part of the decision-making process. Promulgation signifies that on the date it was made, the judge or justices who signed the decision continued to support it which could be inferred from his silence or failure to withdraw his vote despite being able to do so. A decision or resolution of the court becomes such, only from the moment of its promulgation.

A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before.  It is an elementary doctrine that for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who penned it.