Petitioner,
Present:
Respondent.
July 17, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO, J.:
This
petition for review[1]
assails the 15 December 2004 Decision[2] and 24 August 2005 Resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27178. In its 15 December 2004 Decision, the Court
of Appeals dismissed petitioner Irenorio B. Balaba’s (Balaba) appeal of the 9
December 2002 Decision[4]
of the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50 (trial court), finding
him guilty of Malversation of Public Funds.
In its 24 August 2005 Resolution,
the Court of Appeals denied Balaba’s motion for reconsideration.
On
18 and 19 October 1993, State Auditors
Arlene Mandin and Loila Laga of the Provincial Auditor’s Office conducted an
examination of the cash and accounts of the accountable officers of the
Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol. The
State Auditors discovered a cash shortage of P56,321.04, unaccounted
cash tickets of P7,865.30 and an unrecorded check of P50,000
payable to Balaba, or a total shortage of P114,186.34. Three demand letters were sent to Balaba
asking him to explain the discrepancy in the accounts. Unsatisfied with Balaba’s explanation, Graft
Investigation Officer I Miguel P. Ricamora recommended that an information for
Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, be filed against Balaba with the Sandiganbayan.[5]
In
an Information[6]
dated 26 April 1995, the Office of the Special Prosecutor charged Balaba with
the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.[7]
The Information against Balaba reads as follows:
That
on or about October 19, 1993, in the Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guindulman, Bohol and accountable
public officer for the funds collected and received by virtue of his position,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, embezzle and take away
from said funds, the total amount of P114,186.34, which he converted to
his personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
During
his arraignment on 17 May 1996, Balaba entered a plea of not guilty. Trial soon followed.
On
9 December 2002, the trial court found Balaba guilty. The dispositive portion of the 9 December
2002 Decision reads:
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the Court resolves that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
Accordingly, pursuant to law, the Court has no recourse but to sentence
the accused, Irenorio B. Balaba, to an indeterminate sentence of 10 YEARS AND
ONE DAY as minimum, to 17 YEARS, 4
MONTHS AND ONE DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. He shall suffer the penalty of perpetual
special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed
which is P114,186.34.
SO ORDERED.[9]
On
14 January 2003, Balaba filed his Notice of Appeal, where he indicated that he
would file his appeal before the Court of Appeals.[10] On 6 August 2003, Balaba filed his
Appellant’s Brief.[11]
The
Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an Appellee’s Brief, filed a
Manifestation and Motion[12]
praying for the dismissal of the appeal for being improper since the
Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal.
In
its 15 December 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed Balaba’s
appeal. The Court of Appeals declared
that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appeal because the Sandiganbayan has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case.
On
27 January 2005, Balaba filed a Motion for Reconsideration and asked that he be
allowed to pursue his appeal before the proper court, the Sandiganbayan.[13] In its 24 August 2005 Resolution, the Court
of Appeals denied Balaba’s motion.
On
7 October 2005, Balaba filed his present petition before this Court where he
raised the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his
appeal instead of certifying the case to the proper court. Balaba claims that it was due to inadvertence
that the notice of appeal was filed before the Court of Appeals instead of the
Sandiganbayan. Balaba adds that his
appeal was dismissed on purely technical grounds. Balaba asks the Court to relax the rules to
afford him an opportunity to correct the error and fully ventilate his appeal
on the merits.
The
petition has no merit.
Upon
Balaba’s conviction by the trial court, his remedy should have been an appeal
to the Sandiganbayan. Paragraph 3,
Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 (RA 8249),[14] which further defined the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan, reads:
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. (Emphasis ours)
There is nothing in said paragraph
which can conceivably justify the filing of Balaba’s appeal before the Court of
Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan.
Clearly, the Court of Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to review
the judgment Balaba seeks to appeal.
In
Melencion v. Sandiganbayan,[15]
we ruled:
An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records of the case are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of court would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court reads:
“An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.” (Emphasis ours)
In
this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only
after the expiration of the period to appeal.
The trial court promulgated its Decision on 9 December 2002. Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14
January 2003. The Court of Appeals
issued the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December
2004. Balaba tried to correct the error
only on 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day period to appeal from the
decision of the trial court. Therefore,
the Court of Appeals did not commit any error when it dismissed Balaba’s appeal
because of lack of jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 15 December 2004 Decision and 24 August 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27178.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 55-58. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Pampio A. Abarintos, concurring.
[3] Id. at 64-65.
[4] Id. at 24-36. Penned by Executive Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr.
[5] Records, pp. 4-5. Graft Investigation Officer III Edgardo C. Labella recommended the approval of the recommendation. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo C. Mojica approved the recommendation.
[6] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[7] The Information was originally filed with the Sandiganbayan but was subsequently transferred to the trial court on 30 June 1995 upon the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7975.
[8] Rollo, p. 22.
[9] Id. at 36.
[10] Id. at 37.
[11] Id. at 39-49.
[12] Id. at 50-53.
[13] CA rollo, pp. 111-113.
[14] Entitled “An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For The Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes.” Approved on 5 February 1997.
[15] G.R. No. 150684, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 345, 353.