HERNAN v. Sandiganbayan
HERNAN v. Sandiganbayan
HERNAN v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
Commission On Audit filed a complaint for malversation of public funds
against petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman RTC found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s first counsel erroneously appealed to CA which had no
jurisdiction over the case. The CA took cognizance of the appeal and affirmed the
conviction but later set aside its decision for lack of jurisdiction. later on corrected
appealed to Sandiganbayan. The latter affirmed the decision of RTC. Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that during the trial before the RTC,
her counsel was unable to elicit many facts which would show her innocence. The
motion for reconsideration was denied which attained finality. Petitioner filed an
Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with Leave of Court and with Prayer to Stay the
Execution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case should be reopened.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
No. The case should not be reopened.
Section 24, Rule 119 and existing jurisprudence provide for the following
requirements for the reopening a case: (l) the reopening must be before the finality
of a judgment of conviction; (2) the order is issued by the judge on his own
initiative or upon motion; (3) the order is issued only after a hearing is conducted;
(4) the order intends to prevent a miscarriage of justice; and (5) the presentation of
additional and/or further evidence should be terminated within thirty days from the
issuance of the order.
The absence of the first requisite that the reopening must be before the
finality of a judgment of conviction already cripples the motion.
The records of the case clearly reveal that the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan
denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration had already become final and
executory and, in fact, was already recorded in the Entry Book of Judgments.