3&epublic of tbe tlbilippineS'

~upreme Ql:ourt
fflanila

FIRST DIVISION1

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued Cl

Resolution dated December 7, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 253260 - Camilo Loyola Sabio v. Honorable

Sandiganbayan (4th Division) and People of the Philippines . ,,_ ,,., .:.,.,~,;~.,,.

ANTECEDENTS

In Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1234, the Sandiganbayan

found petitioner Camilo Loyola Sabio guilty of violation of Section
3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) and sentenced him to an
indeterminate penalty of six ( 6) years and one ( 1) month, as
minimum, up to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetual
disqualification from holding public office.

On December 23, 2019, petitioner moved to reconsider on

ground of double jeopardy. He also acknowledged receipt of the
assailed decision on December 19, 2019. 2

Under Resolution3 dated January 27, 2020, the Sandiganbayan

denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It also stressed
that the motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed on December
23, 2019. He had fifteen (15) days from the date of promulgation or

- over - nine (9) pages ...

178-A

1 Section 7, Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court:

Section 7. Resolutions of motions for reconsideration or clarification of
minute resolutions or unsigned resolutions not discussing the merits of the case
and all other pleadings, motions and incidents subsequently filed. - Motions for
reconsideration or clarification of minute resolutions or unsigned resolutions not
discussing the merits of the case, and all other pleadings, motions and incidents
subsequently filed in the case, shall be acted upon by the ponente on record with
the participation of the other Members of the Court en bane or regular Division
to which the ponente belongs. (As inserted on August 29, 2017)
2 Rollo, pp. IO 1-102.
3 Id. at 84-87.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

until December 14, 2019 within which to file his motion for
reconsideration. But since December 14, 2019 was a Saturday, the last
day to file the motion was on December 16, 2019. Petitioner received
the resolution of denial on February 4, 2020.

Then he filed a second motion for reconsideration of the

Resolution dated January 27, 2020 reiterating that the rule of double
jeopardy applies in his case. 4 He argued that his acquittal in Criminal
Case No. SB-16-CRM-1235 bars his conviction in Criminal Case No.
SB-16-CRM-1234 which involved a similar offense.

While his second motion for reconsideration pended, on June

19, 2020, petitioner, through another counsel, filed a supplemental
motion, 5 claiming for the first time that there was a defective
promulgation of judgment because only the dispositive portion was
read to him, sans the statement of facts and law on which the
judgment was based contrary to Rule 120, Sec. 1 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure. Petitioner thus, concluded that the period to file
the motion for reconsideration should be reckoned from receipt of the
judgment and not on the date of its promulgation. The prosecution
filed its comment, arguing that the promulgation was valid. It
emphasized that petitioner agreed to the reading only of the
dispositive portion of Decision dated November 29, 2019 during the
promulgation. Thus, the reckoning period for filing the motion for
reconsideration should be from the date of promulgation and not from
petitioner's receipt of the judgment. 6

By Resolution7 dated June 25, 2020, the Sandiganbayan denied

the second motion for reconsideration on ground that it was a
prohibited pleading. Petitioner received the notice of denial on June
30, 2020. 8

On July 6, 2020, petitioner filed an urgent motion to be placed

under house arrest or in any government medical facility so he could
get treatment for his various medical conditions which could be
aggravated ifhe remained in a detention facility due to COVID-19. 9
.•• ·., ...........·.."t,- ~J,,._,,

Then, on July 10, 2020, petitioner filed his notice of appeal and
urgent motion to extricate. 10

- over -
178-A

4
Id. at 103-105.
5
Id. at 106-122.
6
Id. at 132-137.
1
Id. at 88-90.
8
Id. at 5.
9
Id. at 149-151.
10
Id. at 95, 156-159.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

Meanwhile, under Resolution 11 dated August 10, 2020, the

Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's supplemental motion. The court
stressed anew that the motion for reconsideration was belatedly filed
and as such did not toll the period of appeal.

In yet another Resolution 12 dated September 14, 2020, the

Sandiganbayan also denied petitioner's urgent omnibus motion, notice
of appeal, and urgent motion to extricate. It ruled that ( 1) Sabio had
already lost his period to appeal the judgment of conviction, (2)
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan cannot be applied to allow his release on
bail since he was already convicted and should already start to serve
his sentence and, (3) for humanitarian considerations, he is allowed to
be confined in a government hospital of his choice for treatment until
he is cleared to serve his sentence in a penal facility, considering his
medical condition and vulnerability to COVID-19 if placed in a
detention facility. But his hospital confinement cannot be credited in
the service of his sentence.

Aggrieved, petitioner sought affirmative relief from the Court

via Rule 65 to nullify the alleged void judgment of conviction and
related resolutions of the Sandiganbayan because ( 1) his motion for
reconsideration was timely filed on December 23, 2019 or within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision, (2) the
Information failed to allege the crime he was charged with, (3) the
prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime, (4) the
mitigating circumstance of old age was not considered in imposing the
appropriate penalty, (5) his appeal should not be denied on a mere
technicality and, (6) for humanitarian and medical reasons, he should
be allowed to either post bail or be detained in his home.

By Resolution 13 dated October 14, 2020, the Court resolved to

dismiss the petition for failure to show that the Sandiganbayan
committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its assailed
dispositions. Too, the verdict of conviction (Decision dated November
29, 2019) had already attained finality for petitioner's failure to timely
appeal it.

In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates his plea

to avail of the remedy of certiorari to correct the alleged injustice
committed against him, asserting, thus: (1) the fifteen (15)-day period

- over -
178-A

11 /d.at91-94.
12
Id. at 95-100.
13
Id. at 164.

~~~
,...
·····•·~
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

within which to file his motion for reconsideration should be reckoned

from his actual receipt of the verdict of conviction and not from its
promulgation during which the required statement of facts or law was
not read in open court; (2) the Sandiganbayan did not even rule on the
issues raised in his supplemental motion, i.e., the Information did not
charge an offense, the court failed to appreciate the mitigating
circumstance of old age in the imposition of the penalty, and stay his
detention pending motion for reconsideration, for humanitarian and
medical reasons; (3) in the interest of substantial justice, his appeal
should have been given due course, or in the alternative, the verdict of
conviction should have been reversed as his alleged act of influencing
his brother did not constitute an offense.

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

seeks to deny petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration for alleged lack
of merit. It argues that the assailed verdict of conviction had long
attained finality and immutability since petitioner failed to timely file
his motion for reconsideration.

By way of reply, petitioner repleads his arguments in his

motion for reconsideration. He prays anew that he be allowed to post
bail or be detained at home so as not to aggravate his failing health
and serious physical condition.

OUR RULING

We RECONSIDER.

The fifteen (15)-day period

within which to file the
motion for reconsideration
should be reckoned from
petitioner's receipt of the
judgment of conviction.

Section 1, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court requires that the ·

judgment must be in writing and must contain the facts and law upon
which it is based, viz.:

Section 1. Judgment definition and f orm. - Judgment is

the adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty
of the offense charged and the imposition on him of the proper
penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be written in the official
language, personally and directly prepared by the judge and

- over -
178-A
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

signed by him and shall contain clearly and distinctly a

statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based.
(Emphasis supplied)

Further, Section 4, Rule VIII of the 2018 Revised Internal

Rules of the Sandiganbayan (Internal Rules) ordains that
promulgation of judgment shall be done by reading the judgment or
sentence in the presence of the accused and any member of the
Division which rendered the judgment. In the absence of the accused
despite notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the
judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his
last known address or thru his counsel pursuant to Sec. 6, Rule 120 of
the Revised Rules of Court.

Additionally, Section 1, Rule IX of the Internal Rules provides

that an accused may file a motion for new trial or reconsideration of a
decision or final order within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of
judgment or from notice of the final order or judgment.

It is undisputed that petitioner here was present during the

promulgation of the verdict of conviction (Decision dated November
29, 2019) where, with his consent, only its dispositive portion was
read in open court. He acknowledged receipt of the actual copy of the
decision on December 19, 2019.

He filed his motion for reconsideration on December 23 , 2019,

albeit it was denied by the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it was
filed beyond the fifteen ( 15)-day period reckoned from promulgation
of the judgment of conviction on November 29, 2019.

To begin with, all accused have the right to be served copy of

the judgment for or against them. In cases of conviction, it would only
be upon receipt of the full text of the decision that the accused may be
fully informed of the factual and legal bases thereof which the
accused indispensably need to be able to intelligently and effectively
formulate the arguments in support of their motion for reconsideration
should they be minded to file one. While the rules provide that the
period to file the motion for reconsideration commences to run from
the promulgation of judgment, it presupposes that on the same day
itself, the accused have likewise been furnished a copy of the decision
against them.

Here, records show that petitioner was actually furnished a copy

of the decision only on December 19, 2019 and not during the
promulgation day itself on November 29, 2019. Consequently,

- over -
178-A
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021 .

petitioner had until January 3, 2020 within which to file his motion for
reconsideration which he did on December 23, 2019 well within the
fifteen ( 15)-day reglementary period.

The Court is very much aware of Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 14

People v. Tamani1 5 and Landicho v. Tan. 16 There, the Court
invariably clarified that insofar as the accused are concerned, the
period for appeal in case of conviction is counted from the date of
promulgation of the decision, not from receipt of the physical copy
itself by the accused or their counsel.

And rightly so. For a notice of appeal is merely a brief

statement of the intention of the accused to elevate the decision to a
higher court. 17 No further discussion is necessary as the issues will be
discussed and elaborated in the appeal briefs to be filed much later.

But filing a motion for reconsideration is another story. As

stated, the reckoning period for filing it is from receipt of the verdict
of conviction for the purpose of enabling the accused to formulate the
specific arguments in support of their motion for reconsideration.

Verily, therefore, the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its

discretion when it denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for
having been filed out of time. For the court should have reckoned the
fifteen (15)-day period not from the promulgation of judgment on
November 29, 2019 but from petitioner's receipt of the decision on
December 19, 2019. To be sure, when petitioner filed his motion for
reconsideration on December 23, 2019, it was well within the
reglementary period of fifteen ( 15) days. Consequently, there is a need
to reinstate petitioner's motion for reconsideration and remand it to
the Sandiganbayan for resolution.

A convicted person's right to

bail is subject to the sound
discretion of the court which
must be exercised with
caution and for strong
reasons

Bail is either a matter of right or of discretion. It is a matter of

right when the offense charged is not punishable by death, reclusion

- over -
178-A

14
433 Phil. 844 (2002).
15 154Phil.142(l974).
16 87 Phil. 60 I (] 950).
17 See Ramirez v. People, 718 Phil. 653, 659 (2013).

...:·•.·~-~:. .,.~:i,..:~...
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

perpetua, or life imprisonment. On the other hand, upon conviction by

the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail becomes a matter of
discretion. For upon conviction, the presumption of innocence is
terminated and accordingly, the constitutional right to bail ends. From
then on, the grant of bail is subject to judicial discretion which must
be exercised with grave caution and only for strong reasons. 18
. • ... . . • . /,~~..:,,';-'·vl

Under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, when the

court imposes the penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years,
but not more than twenty (20) years, the accused shall be denied bail,
or his or her bail previously granted shall be cancelled when any of
the bail-negating circumstances are present, to wit.

(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or

habitual delinquent, or has committed the cnme
aggravated by the circumstance on reiteration;

(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped

from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated
the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That the accused committed the offense while on

probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his case

indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of

the appeal, the accused may commit another crime.

The appellate court may review the resolution of the

Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to the
adverse party.

Thus, the accused shall be denied bail if any of the

aforementioned circumstances are present. But if none of the bail
negating circumstances are present, the Court may grant bail with
extreme caution and only for strong reasons. 19

Petitioner is eighty-five (85) years old and had a stroke. He has

been wheelchair bound for years already. 20 Lately, he was diagnosed

- over -
178-A

18 See Leviste v. Court ofAppeals, 629 Phil. 587, 614 (2010).

19 Id.
20
Rollo, p. 52.
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

with community-acquired pneumonia and hypertension. 2 1 Notably,

under Resolution dated September 14, 2020, the Sandiganbayan
granted his request for hospital confinement until he is medically
cleared to serve his sentence.

As earlier stated, petitioner again implores the Court to consider

his present state to allow him to post bail or to be detained in his home
so as not to further aggravate his frail health.

We grant petitioner's prayer for bail.

In People v. Canillo-Prospero, 22 the Court granted the request

for bail pending appeal by therein accused Abiso and Desedilla who
were both found guilty of malversation of public funds and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua. The Court took into consideration that both
were ill and already sixty-five (65) years old. There was no slightest
indication that they were flight-risk nor posed the risk of being repeat
offenders.

Here, pet1t10ner, all eighty-five (85) years of age is in his

twilight and illness laden years. The People itself has not refuted his
serious medical condition. There is no indication that he is a flight risk
for he is no longer even ambulatory. Nor does he pose a danger of
being a repeat offender since he had long ceased to be in government
service. His continuous incarceration will not do any good to his
already failing health, let alone, to society in general.

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion for

Reconsideration dated February 2, 2021 , VACATES its Resolution
dated October 14, 2020, NULLIFIES the Resolutions dated January
27, 2020, June 25, 2020, August 10, 2020 and September 14, 2020 of
the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-1234, and
REINSTATES and REMANDS petitioner' s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision dated November 29, 2019 for
resolution of the Sandiganbayan.

- over -
178-A

21 Id. at 152-155.
22 G.R. Nos. 21 2399 & 2 12874, November 26, 2018 .
RESOLUTION 9 G.R. No. 253260
December 7, 2021

FURTHER, petitioner Camilo Loyola Sabio is ordered

PROVISIONALLY RELEASED upon posting a cash bond of Two
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00), unless he is being detained
for other lawful cause. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to submit
its compliance to the Court within five (5) days from notice.

The Clerk of Court is directed to furnish the Sandiganbayan and

the Office of the Ombudsman a copy of this Resolution via personal .
service.

The Office of the Solicitor General ' s motion for an extension of

twenty (20) days from June 12, 2021 within which to file a comment
on the motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated October 14, .
2020 and the petitioner' s motion for leave to file a reply to the
respondent's comment, requesting that it be given a period of fifteen
(15) days from July 2, 2021 within which to file the same, are
GRANTED.

SO ORDERED." Jnting, J., designated Additional Member

in lieu of Gesmundo, C.J., per Raffle dated December 6, 2021.

By authoricy of the Court:

LIBRA

by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO
Deputy Division Clerk of Courtl?\,1.
178-A

FERIA TANTOCO DAOS SANDIGANBAYAN (x)

LAW OFFICES 4tl, Division
Counsel for Petitioner Centennial Building, Commonwealth
8th Floor, DPC Place, 2322 Don Chino Races Avenue, 11 26 Quezon City
Avenue Extension, 1231 Makati C ity (Crim. Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-1 234
(rofruto@ferialaw.com; jjdaos@ferialaw.com) to SB-I 6-CRM-1235)
(4thdiv.sb@judiciary.gov.ph)
Public Information Office (x) (sbj rd2020@gmail.com)
Library Services (x)
Supreme Court The Solicitor General
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
N o. 12-7-1-SC) 1229 Makati City

Philippine Judicial Academy (x) OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN (x)

Supreme Court Ombudsman Building, Agham Road
Diliman, I 101 Quezon C ity
Judgment Division (x)
Supreme Court

UR