of incarceration for a crime which he might not have committed after all.

G.R. No. 103276. April 11, 1996. *

More so, considering that petitioner’s record as public servant remained

DOMINGO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN unscathed until his prosecution. Indeed, “while guilt shall not escape,
(Second Division) and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, innocence should not suffer.”
respondents.
OMNIBUS MOTION for leave to vacate first motion for
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Supreme Court; Rules of
reconsideration and to set aside conviction.
Court; The power of the Supreme Court to suspend its own rules or to except
a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice require
it, cannot be questioned.—After carefully considering anew petitioner’s plight The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
and keeping in mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over      Zambrano, Gruba & Associates for petitioner.
technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider. The power of this Court to
suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations RESOLUTION
whenever the purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned. In not a few
instances, this Court ordered a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not FRANCISCO, J.:
mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness, negligence or
incompetency of counsel, improvident plea of guilty, disqualification of an
The Court in its June 16, 1994 En Banc Resolution  denied with 1

attorney de oficio to represent the accused in trial court, and where a judgment
was rendered on a stipulation of facts entered into by both the prosecution and finality petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April
the defense. Similarly, in a considerable host of cases has this prerogative 12, 1994 Decision  affirming his conviction by
2

been invoked to relax even procedural rules of the most mandatory character ________________
in terms of compliance, such as the period to appeal.
_______________ 1
 Rollo, p. 221.
2
 Rollo, pp. 197-203.
*
 EN BANC.
174
172
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
the Sandiganbayan  of violation of Section 3(e) of the “Anti-Graft and
3

72 Corrupt Practices Act”  for his alleged failure to account for

4

De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan P200,000.00 received for certain official training programs of the
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Clearly, when ”transcendental matters” Department of Agriculture. Entry of judgment was ordered to be
like life, liberty or State security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely made in due course.  Six (6) years and one (1) month as minimum, to
5

to be welcomed more generously, and under the circumstances of the instant nine (9) years and one (1) day as maximum in jail await petitioner.
case, higher interests of justice and equity demand that an accused be not As the Sandiganbayan and the Court saw it then, petitioner’s
penalized for the costly importunings of his lawyers.—Clearly, when guilt was duly established by 1) lone prosecution witness Josephine
“transcendental matters” like life, liberty or State security are involved,
Angeles’  testimony that no such training programs were held at the
6

suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. Petitioner’s

present dilemma is certainly not something reducible to pesos and centavos. designated places,  and 2) petitioner’s failure to present a single
7

No less than his liberty is at stake here. And he is just about to lose it simply receipt to support due disbursement of the P200,000.00, resulting
because his former lawyers pursued a carelessly contrived procedural strategy from his former lawyers’ insistence in filing a demurrer to evidence
of insisting on what has already become an imprudent remedy, as despite prior leave for that purpose having been denied by the
aforediscussed, which thus forbade petitioner from offering his evidence all Sandiganbayan.
the while available for presentation before the Sandiganbayan. Under the To avert his looming imprisonment and with full awareness that
circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioner be he has nothing in our Rules of Court to rely on, petitioner takes a
not penalized for the costly importunings of his previous lawyers based on the
novel recourse by filing the instant “Omnibus Motion For Leave to
same principles why this Court had, on many occasions where it granted new
trial, excused parties from the negligence or mistakes of counsel. To cling to Vacate First Motion For Reconsideration In The Light Of The
the general rule in this case is only to condone rather than rectify a serious Present Developments And To Consider Evidence Presented Herein
injustice to petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his And To Set Aside Conviction.”  This was filed on petitioner’s behalf
8

innocence to his previous lawyers. Consequently, the receipts and other by a new counsel, as shown by the “Entry of Appearance and Motion
documents constituting his evidence which he failed to present in the For Leave To Submit Attached Omnibus Motion” filed on June 27,
Sandiganbayan are entitled to be appreciated, however, by that forum and not 1994  after petitioner’s former lawyers withdrew their appearance.
9 10

this Court, for the general rule is that we are not triers of facts. In this Omnibus Motion, petitioner, for the first time, seeks to be
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; The power of the Supreme Court to
relieved from what he considers as the serious and costly
suspend or even disregard the rules of procedure can be so pervasive and _______________
encompassing so as to alter even that which the Court itself has already
declared to be final.—Let us not forget that the rules of procedure should be 3
 Decision dated November 19, 1991, Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 30-43.
viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their 4
 R.A. 3019.
strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to 5
 June 16, 1994 En Banc Resolution, p. 221, Rollo.
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even 6
 Training Officer and Chief of Bureau of Plant Industry from 1985 to 1986.
the Rules of Court envision this liberality. This power to suspend or even 7
 Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur and Baguio City.
disregard the rules can be so pervasive and encompassing so as to alter even 8
 Rollo, pp. 227-243.
that which this Court itself has already declared to be final, as we are now 9
 Rollo, p. 225.
compelled to do in this case. And this is not without additional basis. For
10
 Rollo, p. 222.
in ”Ronquillo v. Marasigan,” the Court held that: “The fact that the decision x
x x has become final, does not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof 175
because even with the finality of VOL. 256, APRIL 11, 1996 175
173
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
VOL. 256, APRIL 11, 1996 1 mistake of his former lawyers  in demurring to the prosecution
11

evidence after court leave was denied, the effect of which deprived
73 him of presenting before the Sandiganbayan the pieces of
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan documentary evidence that would have completely belied the
judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, as in the accusation against him. Annexed to the Omnibus Motion are
instant case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with justice photocopies of the list of expenses and receipts  in support of the
12

and the facts.” (Emphasis supplied) liquidation voucher (Exhibit “E”) showing due disbursement of the
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; Courts in rendering real justice have P200,000.00 received for training programs actually conducted—the
always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm original records of which are all along kept in the Records Section of
that when on the balance, technicalities take a backseat against substantive
the Bureau of Plant Industry as per letter of the Bureau Director
rights, and not the other way around.—The Rules of Court was conceived and
promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to Emiliano P. Gianzon  and which are readily available. Petitioner now
13

bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere appeals to the Court’s sense of justice and equity that these
slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is documents be summoned and appreciated by the Court itself or by
precisely why courts in rendering real justice have always been, as they in fact the Sandiganbayan after remanding the case thereto, if only to give
ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the balance, him the final chance to prove his innocence.
technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way When required by the Court to comment on the “Omnibus
around. Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice Motion,”  the Solicitor General, representing respondents, was
14

Makalintal, ”should give way to the realities of the situation.” And the grim

granted no less than eight (8) extensions to do so,  the last one with15

reality petitioner will surely face, if we do not compassionately bend

backwards and flex technicalities in this instance, is the disgrace and misery warning that no further extension will be given. None was filed.
Instead, the Solicitor General filed a ninth (9th) motion for extension ordered a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not mentioned in the
which was denied considering the warning contained in the eighth statute, viz: retraction of witness,  negligence or incompetency of
19

(8th) extension.  The tenth (10th) motion for extension was merely
16
counsel,  improvient plea of guilty,  disqualification of an attorney de
20 21

noted by the Court.  Thereafter, the Court in a Resolution dated

17
oficio to represent the accused in trial court,  and where a judgment
22

August 15, 1995 required the Solicitor General’s Office to 1) SHOW was rendered on a stipulation of facts entered into by both the
CAUSE why it should not be disciplinarily dealt with for its repeated prosecution and the defense.  Similarly, in a considerable host of
23

failure to file comment and 2) file its comment, both within cases has this prerogative been invoked to relax even procedural rules
_______________ of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, such as the
period to appeal. Take for instance the relatively recent case
 Attys. V.E. del Rosario and Eduardo R. Robles.
11
of ”PNB, et al. v. CA, et al.”   where the Court once again extended
24

 Annexes “B” to “GG,” pp. 245-276, Rollo.

this liberality of allowing an appeal filed beyond the reglementary
12

 Annex “A,” p. 244, Rollo.

13

 En Banc Resolution dated July 5, 1994, p. 279, Rollo.

14 15-day period. It should be noted that Mr. Justice Melo, while
 Resolutions of August 25, 1994, September 13, 1994, October 18, 1994,
15
dissenting therein,  nonetheless made this crucial observation:
25

November 22, 1994, December 6, 1994, January 10, 1995, January 24, 1995 and March _______________
7, 1995.
 Resolution of April 4, 1995.
16

 Resolution of May 23, 1995.

17  Ronquillo v. Marasigan, 5 SCRA 304; Piczon v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 31.
18

 People v. Oscar Castelo, et al., 111 Phil. 54.

19

 U.S. v. Gimenez, 34 Phil. 74.

20

176  People v. Solacito, L-29209, August 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1037; People v.

21

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Mengote, et al., L-30343, July 25, 1975; People v. Vicente del Rosario, L-33270,
November 28, 1975.
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan  U.S. v. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500.
22

 U.S. v. Pobre, 11 Phil. 51.

ten (10) days from notice. In compliance therewith, the Solicitor
23

 G.R. No. 108870, July 14, 1995, granting therein petitioner’s Motion For
24

General’s Office filed its Comment and Explanation. The Court Reconsideration.
accepted such Explanation, noted the Comment filed and required  Joined by Justices Puno and Kapunan.
25

petitioner to file a Reply thereto within ten (10) days from notice in a
Resolution dated October 10, 1995. A Reply was thus filed by 178
petitioner in due time. 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
The Solicitor General’s Office advances the following arguments
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
in its Comment:
“The majority opinion, with due respect would suspend the rule—actually
the law—for what it says are ‘petitioners’ detailed demonstration of the merits
1. 1.Petitioner’s “Omnibus Motion” is violative of the Court’s of the appeal’ without, however, delving on such so-called ‘merits.’ The
adopted policy on second motions for reconsideration as simple merits of one’s case, lost through neglect, to my mind should not
expressed in a Resolution dated April 7, 1988 stating that: automatically call for the suspension of applicable rules, laws, or
jurisprudence. At the very least, before this may be done, transcendental
matters, surely, life, liberty, or the security of the State, should be at risk, but
“Where the Court has resolved to deny a motion for reconsideration and obviously, not simple matters which can be reduced to pesos and centavos.”
decrees the denial to be final, no motion for leave to file second motion for (Italics supplied)
reconsideration shall be entertained.”
Clearly, when “transcendental matters” like life, liberty or State
1. 2.Petitioner is bound by the mistake of his former lawyers, security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to be
assuming that the latter indeed committed one. welcomed more generously.
2. 3.Even granting the petitioner is not bound by his former Petitioner’s present dilemma is certainly not something reducible
lawyer’s mistake, the documentary evidence petitioner to pesos and centavos. No less than his liberty is at stake here. And he
now attempts to present would nonetheless not cast at all is just about to lose it simply because his former lawyers pursued a
a reasonable doubt on his guilt for violation of Section 3 carelessly contrived procedural strategy of insisting on what has
of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, to warrant a reversal of his already become an imprudent remedy, as aforediscussed, which thus
conviction by the Sandiganbayan. forbade petitioner from offering his evidence all the while available
for presentation before the Sandiganbayan. Under the circumstances,
higher interests of justice and equity demand that petitioner be not
Petitioner’s Reply, on the other hand, contains the following counter-
penalized for the costly importunings of his previous lawyers based
arguments:
on the same principles why this Court had, on many occasions where
it granted new trial, excused parties from the negligence or mistakes
1. 1.The “Omnibus Motion” is not violative of the prohibition of counsel.  To cling to the general rule in this case is only to condone
26

on second motions for reconsideration since such motion rather than rectify a serious injustice to petitioners whose only fault
does not seek leave to file a second motion for was to repose his faith and entrust his innocence to his previous
reconsideration but for leave to vacate the first Motion lawyers. Consequently, the receipts and other documents constituting
For Reconsideration filed on May 6, 1994 and in its stead his evidence which he failed to present in the Sandiganbayan are
to admit the “Omnibus Motion” containing the entitled to be appreciated, however, by that forum and not this Court,
petitioner’s documentary evidence and arguments. Thus, for the general rule is that we are not triers of facts. Without
petitioner’s Motion to vacate the first motion for prejudging the result of such appreciation, petitioner’s documentary
reconsideration is but necessary to his defense that he evidences prima facie appear strong when reckoned with the lone
should be excused from the mistake of his former prosecution
lawyers. _______________
2. 2.Adherence to the general rule that the client is bound by
his counsel’s mistake is to deprive petitioner of his liberty 26
 U.S. v. Gimenez, ibid.
through a technicality.
179

177 VOL. 256, APRIL 11, 1996 179

VOL. 256, APRIL 11, 1996 177 De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
witness Angeles’ testimony, indicating that official training programs
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
were indeed actually conducted and that the P200,000.00 cash
advance he received were spent entirely for those programs. In this
1. 3.The pieces of evidence petitioner is now presenting for connection, the Court in ”US v. Dungca,”  had occasion to state that:
27

appreciation either by this Court or the Sandiganbayan “x x x, the rigor of the rule might in an exceptional case be relaxed, this would
will, contrary to the OSG’s claim, disprove his guilt of the be done only under very exceptional circumstances, and in cases where a
charge levelled against him. review of the whole record taken together with the evidence improvidently
omitted would clearly justify the conclusion that the omission had resulted in
the conviction of one innocent of the crime charged.” (Italics supplied)
After carefully considering anew petitioner’s plight and keeping in
mind that substantial rights must ultimately reign supreme over Let us not forget that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere
technicalities, this Court is swayed to reconsider. tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and
The power of this Court to suspend its own rules or to except a rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to
particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be
require it, cannot be questioned.  In not a few instances, this Court
18
avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this liberality.  This power
28
to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so pervasive and
encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has
already declared to be final, as we are now compelled to do in this
case. And this is not without additional basis. For in ”Ronquillo v.
Marasigan,”  the Court held that:
29

“The fact that the decision x x x has become final, does not preclude a
modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality of
judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, as in the instant
case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with justice and the
facts.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth

guidelines in the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the
hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or
robots of technical rules, shorn of
_______________

27
 27 Phil. 274.
28
 Aznar III v. Bernad, 161 SCRA 276; Piczon v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 31.
29
 5 SCRA 304.

180
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering real
justice have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously
guided by the norm that when on the balance, technicalities take a
backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way around.
Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice
Makalintal, ”should give way to the realities of the situation.”  And 30

the grim reality petitioner will surely face, if we do not

compassionately bend backwards and flex technicalities in this
instance, is the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime
which he might not have committed after all. More so, considering
that petitioner’s record as public servant remained unscathed until his
prosecution. Indeed, “while guilt shall not escape, innocence should
not suffer.” 31

In resumé, this is a situation where a rigid application of rules of

procedure must bow to the overriding goal of courts of justice to
render justice where justice is due—to secure to every individual all
possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is
charged. To borrow Justice Padilla’s words in ”People v. CA, et
al.,”   (where substantial justice was upheld anew in allowing therein
32

accused’s appeal despite the withdrawal of his notice of appeal and

his subsequent escape from confinement) that ”if only to truly make
the courts really genuine instruments in the administration of
justice,” the Court believes it imperative, in order to assure against
any possible miscarriage of justice resulting from petitioner’s failure
to present his crucial evidence through no fault of his, that this case
be remanded to the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of
petitioner’s evidence.
_______________

 Urbayan v. Caltex, 5 SCRA 1016; Economic Insurance Co. v. Uy Realty, 34

30

SCRA 749.
 Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil. 556 (quoting Justice Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme
31

Court, 69 U.S. Law Review, June, 1935, No. 6, p. 309).

 G.R. No. 104709, March 7, 1995.
32

181
VOL. 256, APRIL 11, 1996 181
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan
WHEREFORE, petitioner’s “Omnibus Motion” is GRANTED and
the Court’s April 12, 1994 Decision and June 16, 1994 Resolution are
hereby RECONSIDERED. Accordingly, let this case be
REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of
petitioner’s evidence. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa (C.J.), Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Hermosisi
ma, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
     Vitug, J., I reiterate my dissent from the decision now being
reconsidered; accordingly, I vote for acquittal even now.
     Torres, Jr., J., Took no part in the deliberations.

Omnibus motion granted. Decision and resolution granted, case

remanded to Sandiganbayan.