1/1/2015

G.R.No.173523

TodayisThursday,January01,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.173523February19,2014
LUCENAD.DEMAALA,Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN(ThirdDivision)andOMBUDSMAN,Respondents.
DECISION
DELCASTILLO,J.:
Whereapartywasaffordedtheopportunitytoparticipateintheproceedings,yethefailedtodoso,hecannotbe
allowedlaterontoclaimthathewasdeprivedofhisdayincourt.
ThisPetitionforCertiorariWithUrgentMotionForPreliminaryInjunctionAndPrayerForTemporaryRestraining
Order1assailstheMay23,2006Resolution2oftheSandiganbayan,ThirdDivision,inCriminalCaseNos.27208,
27210,27212,27214,2721627219,and2722327228,whichdeniedpetitioner'sMotion.forReconsiderationof
theFebruary9,2006Resolution3orderinghersuspensionpendenteliteasMayorofNarra,Palawan.
FactualAntecedents
Petitioner Lucena D. Demaala is the Municipal Mayor of Narra, Palawan, and is the accused in Criminal Case
Nos.27208,27210,27212,27214,2721627219,and2722327228forviolationsofSection3(h)ofRepublicAct
No.30194(RA3019),whichcasesarependingbeforetheSandiganbayan.
OnJanuary9,2006,theOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorfiledbeforetheSandiganbayanaMotiontoSuspendthe
Accused Pursuant to Section 13, RA 30195 arguing that under Section 13 of RA 3019,6 petitioners suspension
from office was mandatory. Petitioner opposed7 the motion claiming that there is no proof that the evidence
againstherwasstrongthathercontinuanceinofficedoesnotprejudicethecasesagainsthernorposeathreat
tothesafetyandintegrityoftheevidenceandrecordsinherofficeandthatherreelectiontoofficejustifiesthe
denialofsuspension.
RulingoftheSandiganbayan
OnFebruary9,2006,theSandiganbayanissuedaResolutiongrantingthemotiontosuspend,thus:
WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,theMotionoftheProsecutionisherebyGRANTED.Asprayedfor,this
CourtherebyORDERSthesuspensionpendenteliteofhereinaccused,LucenaDiazDemaala,fromherpresent
positionasMunicipalMayorofNarra,Palawan,andfromanyotherpublicpositionhe[sic]maynowbeholding.
His[sic]suspensionfromofficeshallbeforaperiodofninety(90)daysonly,totakeeffectuponthefinalityofthis
Resolution.
LettheHonorableSecretaryoftheDepartmentofInteriorandLocalGovernment,andtheProvincialGovernorof
PalawanbefurnishedcopiesofthisResolution.
Once this Resolution shall have become final and executory, the Honorable Secretary of the Department of
InteriorandLocalGovernmentshallbeinformedaccordinglyfortheimplementationofthesuspensionofherein
accused.
Thereafter,theCourtshallbeinformedoftheactualdateofimplementationofthesuspensionoftheaccused.
SOORDERED.8
The Sandiganbayan held that preventive suspension was proper to prevent petitioner from committing further
acts of malfeasance while in office. It stated further that petitioners reelection to office does not necessarily
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_173523_2014.html

1/6

1/1/2015

G.R.No.173523

prevent her suspension, citing this Courts ruling in Oliveros v. Judge Villaluz9 that pending prosecutions for
violationsofRA3019committedbyanelectiveofficialduringonetermmaybethebasisforhissuspensionina
subsequenttermshouldhebereelectedtothesamepositionoroffice.Thecourtaddedthatbyherarraignment,
petitionerisdeemedtohaverecognizedthevalidityoftheInformationsagainstherthus,theorderofsuspension
shouldissueasamatterofcourse.
On March 23, 2006, petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration.10 She argued that the motion to suspend
shouldhavebeenfiledearlierandnotwhentheprosecutionisabouttoconcludethepresentationofitsevidence
thattheprosecutionevidenceindicatesthatpetitionersactsarenotcoveredbySection3(h)ofRA3019,andthus
not punishable under said law that the evidence failed to show that petitioner was committing further acts of
malfeasanceinofficeandthatsuspensionwhilemandatoryisnotnecessarilyautomatic.Petitionerscheduled
thehearingofherMotionforReconsiderationonApril26,2006,thus:
NOTICEOFHEARING
To:Pros.ManuelT.Soriano,Jr.
OfficeoftheSpecialProsecutor
SandiganbayanBldg.
CommonwealthAvenue
QuezonCity
GREETINGS:
Please take notice that on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 at 1:30 oclock P.M. or as soon as [sic]
thereafter as counsels may be heard, the undersigned will submit the foregoing Motion for the
considerationandapprovaloftheHonorableCourt.
(signed)
ZOILOC.CRUZAT 11
TheOmbudsman(prosecution)opposed12petitionersMotionforReconsideration.
OnApril19,2006,theprosecutionfiledaManifestationwithMotiontoResettheTrialScheduledonApril26and
27,2006.13ItsoughttoresetthescheduledApril26and27,2006hearingforthecontinuationofthepresentation
of the prosecutions evidence to a later date. The manifestation and motion to reset trial was scheduled for
hearingonApril21,2006.Itstates,inpart,that
Per the January 19, 2006 Order of the Honorable Court, trial of these cases will continue on April 26 and 27,
2006,bothat1:30intheafternoon.
xxxx
In view of the foregoing and in order not to make the government unnecessarily pay for the expenses of the
intended witnesses who were in Palawan, the prosecution did not issue a subpoena to its next witnesses
anymore.
Unfortunately, to date, the parties are yet to meet and discuss matters that would be included in the joint
stipulations,asthetwo(2)scheduledmeetingsattheOfficeoftheSpecialProsecutorbetweentheprosecution
and the defense did not materialize. Nevertheless, the accused has not filed any manifestation to inform the
HonorableCourtthattheaccusedisnolongerwillingtoenterintostipulations.Hence,thereisapossibilitythat
thepartieswilleventuallycomeupwithajointstipulationoffacts.14(Emphasissupplied)
On April 21, 2006, the Sandiganbayan issued an Order15 granting the prosecutions motion to reset trial and
scheduledthecontinuationthereofonAugust2and3,2006.TheOrderreads,asfollows:
InviewoftheMotiontoResettheTrialScheduledonApril26and27,2006filedbytheProsecutionandfinding
thesametobemeritorious,themotionisherebygranted.Thus,trialonApril26and27,2006iscancelledand
resetonAugust2and3,2006,bothat1:30intheafternoon.
Notifythepartiesandcounselsaccordingly.
SOORDERED.16
OnMay23,2006,theSandiganbayanissuedtheassailedResolutiondenyingpetitionersMarch23,2006Motion
forReconsideration,thus:
WHEREFORE,PREMISESCONSIDERED,theinstantMotionforReconsiderationfiledbyhereinaccusedMayor
Lucena Diaz Demaala, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Our ruling in our Resolution of February 9, 2006 is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_173523_2014.html

2/6

1/1/2015

G.R.No.173523

MAINTAINED.
SOORDERED.17
Indenyingthemotion,theSandiganbayanheldthatthegroundsrelieduponandargumentsraisedthereinwere
mere reiterations of those contained in petitioners Opposition to the Motion to Suspend the Accused that
contrary to petitioners submission that the motion to suspend should have been filed earlier and not when the
prosecutionisabouttoconcludethepresentationofitsevidence,thesuspensionofanaccusedpublicofficeris
allowedsolongashiscaseremainspendingwiththecourtthattheissueofwhetherpetitionersactsconstitute
violations of RA 3019 is better threshed out during trial and that while it is not shown that petitioner was
committingfurtheractsofmalfeasancewhileinoffice,thepresumptionremainsthatunlesssheissuspended,she
mightintimidatethewitnesses,frustrateprosecution,orfurthercommitactsofmalfeasance.18
Feelingaggrieved,petitionerfiledtheinstantPetition.
OnAugust9,2006,theCourtissuedaStatusQuoOrder19enjoiningtheimplementationoftheSandiganbayans
February9,2006Resolution.
Issue
PetitionerclaimsthatshewasdenieddueprocesswhentheSandiganbayanissueditsMay23,2006Resolution
denyingherMotionforReconsiderationevenbeforethesamecouldbeheardonthescheduledAugust2and3,
2006hearings.
PetitionersArguments
ThePetitionispremisedontheargumentthatpetitionersMotionforReconsiderationoftheFebruary9,2006
ResolutionorderinghersuspensionfromofficewasoriginallysetforhearingonApril26,2006,butuponmotion
bytheprosecution,thesamewasresettoAugust2and3,2006nonetheless,beforethesaiddatecouldarrive,
or on May 23, 2006, the Sandiganbayan resolved to deny her Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, she was
deprivedoftheopportunitytobeheardonherMotionforReconsiderationontheappointeddatesAugust2and
3, 2006, thus rendering the courts May 23, 2006 Resolution void for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion.
InherReply,20petitioneraddsthathercounselintentionallysetthehearingofherMotionforReconsiderationon
April 26 and 27, 2006 in order to coincide with the main trial of the criminal cases that since the court
rescheduledtheApril26and27hearings,shenolongerbotheredtogotocourtonApril26,2006as"shehadno
businesstobethere".Petitionerfurtherclaimsthatshedidnotfileanypleadingseekingtoresetthehearingof
her Motion for Reconsideration because the same had already been scheduled for hearing on August 2 and 3,
2006attheinitiativeoftheprosecution.
PetitionernowpraysthattheFebruary9andMay23,2006ResolutionsoftheSandiganbayanbesetaside,and
thatinjunctivereliefbegrantedtoenjoinhersuspensionfromoffice.
RespondentsArguments
Praying that the Petition be dismissed, the prosecution argues in its Comment21 that petitioners arguments are
misleading.ItstressesthattheprosecutionsManifestationwithMotiontoResettheTrialScheduledonApril26
and27,2006soughttoresetthescheduledApril26and27,2006hearingforthecontinuationofthepresentation
of the prosecutions evidence, and not the scheduled April 26, 2006 hearing of petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.Itclarifiesthatareadingofitsmanifestationandmotiontoresettrialwouldrevealthatwhatwas
soughttoberescheduledwasthehearingproperandnotthehearingonpetitionersMotionforReconsideration
inthesamevein,whattheSandiganbayangrantedinitsApril21,2006OrderwasthereschedulingoftheApril26
and27,2006hearingforthecontinuationofthepresentationoftheprosecutionsevidence,andnottheApril26,
2006 hearing of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. For this reason, it cannot be said that petitioner was
denieddueprocesswhentheSandiganbayanissueditsassailedMay23,2006Resolution.
1 w p h i1

The prosecution adds that petitioner should have gone to court on April 21, 2006 to attend the hearing of its
manifestationandmotiontoresettrialtoreiterateherMotionforReconsideration.
Next, the prosecution argues that petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was not denied outright the
Sadiganbayan resolved her motion on the merits and painstakingly addressed each argument raised therein.
Moreover, the prosecution filed its written opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration, which thus joined the
issues and rendered the motion ripe for resolution. As such, petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit her evidence on the motion. It cites the ruling in Batul v. Bayron22 stating that "to be heard
doesnotonlymeanpresentationoftestimonialevidenceincourt.Onemayalsobeheardthroughpleadingsand
whereopportunitytobeheardthroughpleadingsisaccorded,thereisnodenialofdueprocess."23
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_173523_2014.html

3/6

1/1/2015

G.R.No.173523

OurRuling
TheCourtdismissesthePetition.
TheonlyissueiswhetherpetitionerwasdenieddueprocesswhentheSandiganbayanissueditsMay23,2006
ResolutiondenyingtheMotionforReconsiderationwithoutconductingahearingthereon.
PetitionerscauseofactionliesintheargumentthatherMotionforReconsideration,whichwasoriginallysetfor
hearing on April 26, 2006, was reset to August 2 and 3, 2006 via the Sandiganbayans April 21, 2006 Order.
Nonetheless, before the said date could arrive, the antigraft court supposedly precipitately issued the assailed
May 23, 2006 Resolution denying her Motion for Reconsideration, thus depriving her of the opportunity to be
heard.
Theabovepremise,however,isgrosslyerroneous.
AreadingandunderstandingoftheApril21,2006OrderoftheSandiganbayanindicatesthatwhatitreferredto
werethetwohearingdatesofApril26and27,2006coveringthecontinuationofthetrialpropertheongoing
presentation of the prosecutions evidence and not the single hearing date of April 26, 2006 for the
determinationofpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.Theprosecutionsmanifestationandmotiontoresettrial
itselfunmistakablyspecifiedthatwhatwasbeingresetwasthetrialproperwhichwasscheduledonApril26and
27, 2006 pursuant to the courts previous January 19, 2006 Order it had nothing at all to do with petitioners
MotionforReconsideration.
If petitioner truly believed that the prosecutions manifestation and motion to reset trial referred to the April 26,
2006 hearing of her Motion for Reconsideration, then she should have attended the scheduled April 21, 2006
hearing thereof to reiterate her motion or object to a resetting. Her failure to attend said hearing is a strong
indication that she did not consider the manifestation and motion to reset trial as covering or pertaining to her
MotionforReconsiderationwhichshesetforhearingonApril26,2006.
On the other hand, petitioners failure to attend the scheduled April 26, 2006 hearing of her own Motion for
Reconsiderationisfataltohercause.HerexcusethatshenolongerbotheredtogotocourtonApril26,2006
since"shehadnobusinesstobethere"isunavailing.BybeingabsentattheApril21,2006hearing,petitioner
did not consider the prosecutions manifestation and motion to reset trial as related to her pending Motion for
Reconsideration.Thus,itwasincumbentuponhertohaveattendedthehearingofherownmotiononApril26,
2006. Her absence at said hearing was inexcusable, and the Sandiganbayan was therefore justified in
consideringthemattersubmittedforresolutionbasedonthepleadingssubmitted.
Consequently,therewasnothingprocedurallyirregularintheissuanceoftheassailedMay23,2006Resolution
bytheSandiganbayan.Thecontentionthatpetitionerwasdeprivedofherdayincourtisplainlyspeciousitsimply
doesnotfollow.Whereapartywasaffordedtheopportunitytoparticipateintheproceedings,yethefailedtodo
so,hecannotbeallowedlaterontoclaimthathewasdeprivedofhisdayincourt.Itshouldbesaidthatpetitioner
was accorded ample opportunity to be heard through her pleadings, such conclusion being consistent with the
CourtsrulinginBatulv.Bayron,laterreiteratedinDeLaSalleUniversity,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,24thus
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot
complainofdeprivationofdueprocess.Noticeandhearingisthebulwarkofadministrativedueprocess,theright
towhichisamongtheprimaryrightsthatmustberespectedeveninadministrativeproceedings.Theessenceof
dueprocessissimplyanopportunitytobeheard,orasappliedtoadministrativeproceedings,anopportunityto
explainone'ssideoranopportunitytoseekreconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.Solongasthe
partyisgiventheopportunitytoadvocatehercauseordefendherinterestinduecourse,itcannotbesaidthat
therewasdenialofdueprocess.
Aformaltrialtypehearingisnot,atalltimesandinallinstances,essentialtodueprocessitisenoughthatthe
parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to
present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based. "To be heard" does not only mean
presentation of testimonial evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and where the
opportunitytobeheardthroughpleadingsisaccorded,thereisnodenialofdueprocess.25
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDISMISSED.TheAugust9,2006StatusQuoOrderisLIFTED.
SOORDERED.
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_173523_2014.html

4/6