[G.R. No. 120391. January 21, 2002]

AMPER vs. SANDIGANBAYAN & PEOPLE

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 21 2002.

G.R. No. 120391 (Simplicio Amper vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines.)

On 18 November 1998, this Court (Third Division) denied with finality petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of its decision of 24 September 1997, which affirmed in toto the challenged decision of the Sandiganbayan of 31 January 1995 in Criminal Case No. 14197, as well as petitioners’ supplemental motion for reconsideration and/or new trial.

On 30 March 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Motion for Reconsideration, together with his Second Motion for Reconsideration dated 23 February 1999.

On 28 June 1999, this Court merely noted the aforementioned Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration and the Second Motion for Reconsideration itself.

On 8 August 2000, an entry of judgment was made in this case.

In its Resolution of 6 September 2000, the Court recalled the entry of judgment and directed the Sandiganbayan to return the records of the case to the Court.

On 26 October 2000, petitioner filed a ‘Motion to Annul and Set Aside the Decision of the Sandiganbayan [promulgated on] March 6, 1995 and All Its Subsequent Orders Tending to Implement the Same.”

In view of the retirement of the ponente of this Court’s Decision of 24 September 1997, Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, and of Mr. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero who together with Mr. Justice Jose A.R. Melo and Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, concurred with the ponente, this case was re-assigned to a Special Third Division composed of the Chief Justice as Chairman and Associate Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Artemio V. Panganiban, Bernardo P. Pardo and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago as members, to take cognizance of the aforementioned motion to annul judgment.

After due deliberation, by a vote of three (Davide, Jr., C.J., and Melo and Panganiban, JJ.), with Pardo dissenting, with whom Santiago, J., concurred, the Court resolved to DENY petitioner’s Motion to Annul and Set Aside the Decision of the Sandiganbayan dated March 6, 1995 and All Its Subsequent Orders Tending to Implement the Same. Such motion is in reality a third motion for reconsideration, which merely reiterates the arguments raised in the first and second motions for reconsideration. Petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration was a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 1 of rule 125 in relation to the last sentence of Section 16 of rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure, which took effect on 1 December 2000. Perforce, a third motion for reconsideration is equally a prohibited pleading. In any event, petitioners’ Second motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Annul and Set Aside the Decision of the Sandiganbayan are without any merit.

Let judgment be now entered in due course.

No further pleadings from the parties shall be entertained by this Court in this case. (Pardo, J., DISSENTS)

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court