CARANDANG, J.:
That on or about the 26th day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make false statements of a material fact in her claim for SSS disability, accused well[-]knowing that said statements to be (sic) false and that the documents she presented to the SSS[,] such as [the] Medical Certificate of Dr. Joyce Fernandez Olan dated May 21, 2004 are spurious, to the damage and prejudice of the Social Security SystemThe pertinent provision of the Social Security Law provides:
CONTRARY TO LAW.[9]
Section 28. Penal Clause. – (a) Whoever, for the purpose of causing any payment to be made under this Act, or under an agreement thereunder, where none is authorized to be paid, shall make or cause to be made false statement or representation as to any compensation paid or received, or whoever makes or causes to be made any false statement of a material fact in any claim for any benefit payable under this Act, or application for loan with the SSS, or whoever makes or causes to be made any false statement, representation, affidavit or document in connection with such claim or loan, shall suffer the penalties provided for in Article One hundred seventy-two of the Revised Penal Code.On December 11, 2008, Celorio was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial ensued.[10]
(b) Whoever shall obtain or receive any money or check under this Act or any agreement thereunder, without being entitled thereto with intent to defraud any member, employer or the SSS, shall be fined not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Lilame V. Celorio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 28 (a) of R.A. 1161, as amended, and hereby imposes upon her the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 1 year and 1 day as minimum to 4 years, 9 months and 11 days as maximum and a fine in the amount of Php5,000.On April 25, 2013, Celorio filed an application for probation with the RTC. On April 26, 2013, SSS filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Amended Decision, pointing out that pursuant to the provisions of Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, the applicable imprisonment for Celorio is not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years, instead of one (1) year penalty of imprisonment, as imposed by the RTC. SSS further argued that the RTC erred in holding that Celorio's civil obligation to SSS should be offset against her total contributions.[15]
Accused Lilame V. Celorio is also found GUILTY of violation of Section 28 (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended, and she is her by sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of one year and pay a fine in the amount of Php5,000.00.
By way of civil indemnity, the accused Lilame V. Celorio is adjudged liable to pay back the Social Security System the total amount of Php93,948.80, received by her due to the fraudulent Disability Benefit Claim, which should be offset against her total contributions of Php122,270.60. The private complainant Social Security System is directed to return to the accused Lilame V. Celorio the balance of her membership contributions in the total amount of Php28,321.80.
SO ORDERED.[14]
WHEREFORE, the application for probation is hereby granted. The execution of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on accused Lilame Celorio in the Court's Amended Decision dated 23 April 2013 is hereby suspended and said accused is hereby placed under probation for a period of two (2) years to be counted from the probationer's initial report for supervision, subject to the following terms and conditions:Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari[21] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA assailing the following: (1) the Amended Decision dated April 23, 2013 of the RTC which found Celorio guilty for violation of Section 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, for not imposing the proper penalty;[22] (2) the Resolution dated October 24, 2013 which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration;[23] and (3) the Resolution dated December 19, 2013 of the RTC.[24]
x x x x[20]
I. WHEN IT DECLARED THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT IS AN IMPROPER REMEDY TO ASSAIL THE TRIAL COURT'S AMENDED DECISION AND RESOLUTIONS.
II. WHEN IT DECLARED THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, BUT MERELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, WHEN: (i) IT IMPOSED THE WRONG PENALTY OF ONE (1) YEAR IMPRISONMENT AFTER FINDING CELERIO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 28 (B) OF R.A. NO. 1161, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8282, EVEN IF THE SAID PROVISION OF LAW MANDATES AN IMPRISONMENT OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY; AND (ii) WHEN IT ORDERED THE OFFSETTING OF CELORIO'S CIVIL LIABILITY AGAINST HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO SSS.[30]
An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal, while an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and which error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.[45] (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring in the original)The question now is whether it is also grave abuse of discretion when a trial court imposes a sentence based on a repealed or non-existing provision of law. We believe that it is.
(b) Whoever shall obtain or receive any money or check under this Act or any agreement thereunder, without being entitled thereto with intent to defraud any covered employee, employer or the SSS, shall be fined not less than five hundred pesos nor more than five thousand pesos and imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than one year. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)When Section 28 (b) was later amended by R.A. No. 8282 in 1997, the period of imprisonment for violation of the said section was increased, thus:
(b) Whoever shall obtain or receive any money or check under this Act or any agreement thereunder, without being entitled thereto with intent to defraud any member, employer or the SSS, shall be fined not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and imprisoned for not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)It is very clear from the foregoing that the penalty imposed by the RTC in its Amended Decision was the penalty under the old provision, which had already been amended and superseded by R.A. No. 8282. To emphasize, under the R.A. No. 8282 amendment of Section 28 (b), the penalty should be a fine not less than P5,000.00 nor more than P20,000.00, and imprisonment for not less than six (6) years and one (1) day nor more than twelve (12) years. Here, the RTC rendered a judgment of conviction for violation of Section 28(b) of R.A. No. 1161 without taking into account the amendment by R.A. No. 8282 as to penalties by sentencing the accused to suffer the penalties of imprisonment of one (1) year and a fine in the amount of P5,000.00. The sentence imposed by the RTC being invalid, the penalty should be corrected in conformity with R.A. No. 8282.
As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. In Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC, [W]e explained the simple reason for the rule in this light:In this case, the prosecution was prevented from filing appeal because Celorio immediately applied for probation. Citing Section 7 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, which states that "a judgment becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation", the RTC denied the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration seeking to correct the sentence. We do not think that the Amended Decision attained finality at all. As the Chief Justice points out, because it imposed a sentence that is based on a non-existent or repealed law, it is a void judgment that created no rights and imposed no duties.[56] Thus, all acts performed pursuant to it and claims emanating from it have no legal effect,[57] including Celorio's probation which the RTC would later approve. We fully agree with the Chief Justice's observation that the principle espoused in Gregorio v. Director of Prisons[58] presupposes that a sentence has to be valid in the first place for the rule on immutability of an entered or executed judgment to take effect.[59] He quotes the following passage in Gregorio:
"When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correct[a]ble through the original civil action of certiorari."[54]
The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over the issuance of a writ of certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court – on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari. Where the error is not one of jurisdiction, but of an error of law or fact – a mistake of judgment – appeal is the remedy.[55]
As a general rule, where the defendant has executed or entered upon the execution of a valid sentence, the court cannot, even during the fifteen-day period, set it aside and render a new sentence. (U. S. vs. Hart, supra; U. S. vs. Vayson, supra; Ex parte Lange [18731, 18 Wall., 163.) To paraphrase the language of the United States Supreme Court in the case last cited, the petitioner having paid into court the fine of P25 imposed upon him, and that money having passed into the Treasury of the Philippine Islands, and beyond the legal control of the court, or of any one else but the Philippine Legislature, all under a valid judgment, can the court vacate that judgment entirely, and, without reference to what has been done under it, impose another punishment oh the prisoner? To do so is to punish him twice for the same offense. He is not only put in jeopardy twice, but put to actual punishment twice for thee same thing.[60] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)Thus, he also points us to People v. Gatward,[61] where We said:
This was not a case of a court rendering an erroneous judgment by inflicting a penalty higher or lower than the one imposable under the law but with both penalties being legally recognized and authorized as valid punishments erroneous judgment, as thus understood, is a valid judgment. But a judgment which ordains a penalty which does not exist in the catalogue of penalties or which is an impossible version of that in the roster of lawful penalties is necessarily void, since the error goes into the very essence of the penalty and does not merely arise from the misapplication thereof. Corollarily, such a judgment can never become final and executory.[62] (Underscoring and emphasis as they appear in Chief Justice's Reflections.)The Amended Decision not having attained finality, it was susceptible to review by the CA through an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the CA was not able to see this. Nevertheless, the superficial finality of the Amended Decision due to Celorio's application for probation under Section 7 of Rule 120 ought not have prevented the CA from giving due course to the prosecution's Rule 65 petition for certiorari. In Villareal v. People,[63] We said:
The proper interpretation of Section 7 of Rule 120 must be that it is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court's jurisdiction is being assailed through a Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment only if the appeal brought before the court is in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy.[64] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)We do not forget that in many prior instances, the Court has held that an appeal by the government seeking to increase the penalty imposed by the trial court places the accused in double jeopardy and should therefore be dismissed. At first glance, it may appear that We have deviated from this settled rule, but as will be explained below, the rule of double jeopardy will apply so as to prevent reversal of appealable errors of judgment – not to errors of jurisdiction, which are correctible only through a writ of certiorari.
Section 2 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides that 'the People of the Philippines cannot appeal if the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.' This provision is based on the old case of Kepner v. United States (11 Phil. 669; 195 U.S. 100), where the U.S. Supreme Court, reviewing a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in 1904, declared by a 5-4 vote that appeal of the prosecution from a judgment of acquittal (or for the purpose of increasing the penalty imposed upon the convict) would place him in double jeopardy. It has been consistently applied since then in this jurisdiction.[70] ( Citation omitted)The instant case was elevated to the CA not through an ordinary appeal, but through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, because what the prosecution sought to correct was the RTC's grave abuse of discretion in imposing a repealed penalty, which We have explained above is an error of jurisdiction—not a mere error of law or fact. In contrast, an appeal does not seek to vacate the lower court of its jurisdiction as it is a remedy designed to correct mere errors of judgment. Thus, appeals are adjudicated on whether the lower court committed reversible error on a question of fact or of law – not grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[71] It is for this reason that grave abuse of discretion is one of the recognized exceptions to the rule on double jeopardy[72] and explains the differing outcomes in the Leones and Veneracion cases.
Section 9. Disqualified Offenders. – The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:Since the proper imposable penalty for the crime which respondent Celorio has been convicted of is six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, Celorio is disqualified from applying for and availing of the benefits of probation. Probation is a mere privilege, not a right.[76] Its benefits cannot extend to those not expressly included. The accused has no demandable right to probation as it is an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the State which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense which he stands to be convicted.[77] As explained above, the RTC was never in a position to show grace or clemency to Celorio.
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
x x x x
By way of civil indemnity, the accused Lilame V. Celorio is adjudged liable to pay back the Social Security System the total amount of Php93,948.80, received by her due to the fraudulent Disability Benefit Claim, which should be offset against her total contributions of Php122,270.60. The private complainant Social Security System is directed to return to the accused Lilame V. Celorio the balance of her membership contributions in the total amount of Php28,321.80.We find merit in petitioners' contention and find that the RTC gravely abused its discretion when it ordered the offsetting of Celorio's civil obligation with her SSS contributions. It erroneously applied the principle of compensation under the Civil Code. Compensation is defined as a mode of extinguishing obligations whereby two persons in their capacity as principals are mutual debtors and creditors of each other with respect to equally liquidated and demandable obligations.[78] The offsetting is contrary to the Civil Code provisions on compensation of obligations, as well as applicable provisions of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282.
Article 1288. Neither shall there be compensation if one of the debts consists in civil liability arising from a penal offense.In the case before Us, Celorio was adjudged to be civilly liable for the amount of P93,948.80 to SSS for violation of Section 28(6) of the subject provision. Celorio's civil liability which arose from the crime in which she was food guilty of committing cannot be offset against her total contributions to SSS. Compensation of civil obligation arising from penal offense is improper and inadvisable because the satisfaction of such obligation is imperative. On the other hand, it cannot be said that SS had a debt in favor of Celorio which is already due and demandable. While, being one of the members of SSS, she has paid her contributions, such contributions are given back to a member and/or to his beneficiaries in the form of benefits. However, the entitlement of a member to his or her beneficiaries to the receipt of such benefits is dependent upon the existence of certain conditions and contingencies, as may be provided for under the Social Security Law. Celorio's membership contributions do not constitute as debts of SSS to Celorio, rather, entitles her to certain benefits. Thus, it was not proper nor legal for the RTC to offset Celorio's liability With her SSS contributions.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Lilame V. Celorio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 28 (a) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, and hereby imposes upon her the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day, as minimum to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days, as maximum, and a fine in the amount of P5,000.00.The Resolutions dated October 24, 2013 and December 19, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85, which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration and granted respondent's application for probation, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Accused Lilame V. Celorio is also found GUILTY of violation of Section 28 (b) of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended by Republic Act No. 8282, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day, as maximum and pay a fine in the amount of P5,000.00.
By way of civil indemnity, accused Lilame V. Celorio is ORDERED to PAY the Social Security System the total amount of P93,948.80, received by her due to the fraudulent Disability Benefit Claim.