People of the Philippines and Social Security System vs. Lilame V. Celorio

The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge a trial court's imposition of a penalty based on a repealed or non-existent law, as such act constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Because the resulting sentence is legally void, it never attains finality under Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, and the rule against double jeopardy does not bar the prosecution from seeking correction. The respondent was thereby statutorily disqualified from probation, and the trial court's order offsetting civil liability against SSS contributions was annulled as contrary to Article 1288 of the Civil Code.

Respondent Lilame V. Celorio, an SSS member, filed a claim for disability benefits for Pulmonary Tuberculosis on May 26, 2004. The SSS Fraud Investigation Department subsequently determined that the supporting documents, including medical certificates and radiologic reports, were spurious. Upon Celorio's failure to return the fraudulently obtained benefits totaling P93,948.80, the SSS filed a criminal complaint for violation of Sections 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.

• Celorio submitted fraudulent medical documents to secure disability benefits from the SSS, receiving P93,948.80.
• The SSS Fraud Investigation Department confirmed the documents were spurious and demanded reimbursement, which Celorio ignored.
• The prosecution filed an Information charging Celorio with violation of Sections 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended.
• The RTC convicted Celorio but erroneously applied the repealed penalty of one (1) year imprisonment for Section 28(b), instead of the amended penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
• The RTC ordered that Celorio's civil liability be offset against her total SSS contributions of P122,270.60, directing the SSS to refund the balance.
• Celorio promptly filed an application for probation. The RTC denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration, ruling that the judgment attained finality upon the probation application pursuant to Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
• The RTC subsequently granted probation for two years. The petitioners sought certiorari to correct the penalty, annul the probation grant, and reverse the offset order.

• Petitioners maintained that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by imposing a penalty under a repealed law, which constitutes an error of jurisdiction correctible via Rule 65 certiorari rather than a mere error of judgment.
• Petitioners argued that the judgment never attained finality because a void judgment creates no rights, rendering the probation application legally ineffective.
• Petitioners contended that the offsetting of civil liability against SSS contributions violated Article 1288 of the Civil Code and the Social Security Law, as civil liability from a penal offense cannot be extinguished through compensation, and SSS contributions do not constitute a liquidated debt owed to the member.

• Respondent countered that petitioners availed of an improper remedy, asserting that a petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal under Rule 41.
• Respondent maintained that the RTC committed, at most, an error of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion, and that the judgment validly attained finality upon her probation application.
• Respondent emphasized that she had already fully served her probation term, and petitioners failed to establish the capricious or despotic exercise of jurisdiction required for certiorari.
• Respondent argued that the constitutional rule against double jeopardy bars the prosecution from seeking a heavier penalty after conviction.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the RTC's Amended Decision and Resolutions, considering the rule on finality of judgments and the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion by imposing a penalty under a repealed law, ordering the offset of civil liability against SSS contributions, and granting probation to a statutorily disqualified offender.

• Procedural: The Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. The imposition of a penalty based on a repealed law constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Because the resulting judgment is void, it does not attain finality under Section 7, Rule 120, and the probation application produces no legal effect. The double jeopardy rule does not bar correction, as the first jeopardy never validly attached due to the invalid sentence, and certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors rather than mere errors of judgment.
• Substantive: The Court found that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by applying the obsolete penalty of one (1) year imprisonment instead of the amended minimum of six (6) years and one (1) day under R.A. No. 8282. Consequently, the respondent was statutorily disqualified from probation under Section 9(a) of P.D. No. 968, which excludes offenders sentenced to a maximum term exceeding six years. The Court further annulled the offset order, holding that civil liability arising from a penal offense cannot be extinguished through compensation under Article 1288 of the Civil Code, and SSS contributions do not constitute a liquidated debt owed to the member. The RTC's Amended Decision was modified to impose the correct penalty and direct full restitution to the SSS.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion as Jurisdictional Error — Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that imposing a sentence under a repealed or non-existent law is a legally baseless act that violates the separation of powers and constitutes grave abuse of discretion, making the judgment void and correctible via Rule 65 certiorari.
• Immutability of Judgment vs. Void Judgments — A judgment becomes final and immutable upon the lapse of the appeal period, satisfaction of sentence, waiver of appeal, or application for probation. However, this rule presupposes a valid judgment. A void judgment, such as one based on a non-existent penalty, creates no rights and never attains finality, allowing superior courts to correct it at any time.
• Double Jeopardy and Invalid Sentences — The first jeopardy attaches only upon a valid conviction and sentence. If the imposed penalty is legally void, no valid first jeopardy exists. Correcting an invalid sentence through certiorari does not place the accused in double jeopardy, as the rule only bars reversal of appealable errors of judgment, not jurisdictional errors.
• Non-Compensability of Civil Liability Arising from Penal Offenses — Under Article 1288 of the Civil Code, compensation is inapplicable when one debt consists of civil liability arising from a penal offense. The Court applied this doctrine to invalidate the RTC's order offsetting the respondent's criminal restitution against her SSS contributions, emphasizing that such liability is imperative and cannot be extinguished by offset.

• "Imposing a legally baseless sentence is not only a serious deviation of a judge's duty under the Rules of Court, but a clear violation of the separation of powers, a doctrine that is of utmost importance in a democratic republic such as ours." — The Court emphasized that judges cannot arrogate legislative power by inventing or applying repealed penalties, as doing so betrays the sovereign will and deviates from legislative intent.
• "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." — The Court relied on this principle to hold that the RTC's void judgment never attained finality, thereby permitting correction via certiorari despite the probation application.

• Toh v. Court of Appeals — Cited to distinguish errors of jurisdiction, which are correctible by certiorari, from errors of judgment, which are correctible only by appeal.
• Cruz v. People — Invoked to establish that a judge's obstinate disregard of basic statutory rules amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
• Madrigal Transport Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corp. and Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC — Cited to explain the fundamental distinction between certiorari, which corrects jurisdictional errors, and appeal, which corrects errors of judgment.
• People v. Veneracion and People v. Leones — Contrasted to illustrate that double jeopardy bars ordinary appeals seeking to increase penalties (errors of judgment) but does not bar certiorari proceedings correcting grave abuse of discretion (jurisdictional errors).
• Villareal v. People — Applied to hold that Section 7 of Rule 120 on finality of judgments is inapplicable when jurisdiction is assailed via Rule 65, and that certiorari does not trigger double jeopardy.
• People v. Gatward — Relied upon to affirm that a judgment imposing a non-existent penalty is void and can never become final and executory.
• Gregorio v. Director of Prisons — Cited to establish that the rule on immutability of judgment presupposes the validity of the underlying sentence.

• Section 28(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 1161, as amended by R.A. No. 8282 — Governs the penal clause for fraudulent SSS claims. The Court applied the amended penalty range (6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment) to correct the RTC's erroneous use of the repealed provision.
• Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court — Provides that a judgment becomes final upon application for probation. The Court ruled it inapplicable here because the underlying judgment was void and never attained finality.
• Section 9(a) of P.D. No. 968 (Probation Law) — Disqualifies offenders sentenced to a maximum term exceeding six (6) years from probation. The Court applied this provision to revoke the respondent's probation grant.
• Article 1288 of the Civil Code — Prohibits compensation when one debt arises from civil liability from a penal offense. The Court cited this to annul the RTC's offset order, holding that criminal restitution is imperative and cannot be extinguished by offsetting.

• Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo — Authored a scholarly reflection extensively cited by the Court, which systematically analyzed the distinction between void and voidable judgments, the nature of grave abuse of discretion in sentencing, and the inapplicability of the double jeopardy rule to jurisdictional errors. His framework provided the doctrinal foundation for the Court's unanimous ruling.