THIRD
DIVISION
|
edgardo v.
estarija, Petitioner, - versus
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, and EDWARD
RANADA, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 173990 Present: QUISUMBING,* J., CARPIO,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, PERALTA,
and ABAD,** JJ. October 27, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D
E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This Petition for Review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the 25 November 2005
Decision[1]
and the 11 July 2006 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modifications the Decision and
Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 8, finding petitioner,
Captain Edgardo V. Estarija (Estarija), then Harbor Master of the Philippine Ports Authority, Davao
City, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3, paragraph b of
Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
On
That
on or about August 6, 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, EDGARDO
ESTARIJA, a public officer, being then the Harbor Master of the Philippine
Ports Authority at Sasa, Davao City, while in the performance of his official
function as such, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
request and consequently receive the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00)
from Davao Pilot Association in consideration of accused’s issuance of berthing
permits.[3]
Upon
his arraignment on
On
For the foregoing, this Court finds accused Capt. Edgardo Estarija GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Par. B, Sec. 3 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of SEVEN (7) YEARS.[5]
Estarija filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC.
On
On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the conviction of Estarija. The
Court of Appeals, however, modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence
ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 9 years, with the accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification from public office, thus:
WHEREFORE, this Court x x x hereby AFFIRMS the finding of guilt of the accused-appellant but ORDERS the modification of the sentence imposed upon the accused-appellant. Conformably, accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to an Indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years and One (1) Month to Nine (9) Years of imprisonment, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.[6]
Hence,
the instant petition.
In the main, the issue for resolution
is whether or not error attended the RTC’s findings, as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, that Estarija is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
3, paragraph b of Republic Act No. 3019.
Quite apart from the foregoing issue
raised by Estarija, the question that comes to the fore, as made evident by the
proceedings below, is whether or not Estarija correctly filed his appeal with the
Court of Appeals; or put differently, whether the Court of Appeals had
appellate jurisdiction over the RTC decision convicting Estarija of the charge.
Although not assigned as an error, said
issue can be entertained by the Court, since, in a criminal proceeding, an
appeal throws the whole case open for review, and it becomes the duty of the
Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment, whether it is made the
subject of an assignment of error or not.[7]
Republic Act No. 8249 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,” which further
defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, took effect on 23 February 1997.
Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 reads:
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to salary Grade ‘27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is manifest from the above
provision that the decisions of the Regional Trial Court -- convicting an accused
who occupies a position lower than that with salary grade 27 or those not
otherwise covered by the enumeration of certain public officers in Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 -- are to be
appealed exclusively to the Sandiganbayan.
Time and again, it has been held that
the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely
a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance
with the provisions of the law. The
party who seeks to avail himself of the same must comply with the requirements
of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost.
Having failed to comply with the
requirements set forth in the rules, Estarija’s appeal should have been
dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
In the instant case, instead of
appealing his conviction to the Sandiganbayan, Estarija erroneously filed an
appeal with the Court of Appeals, in utter disregard of paragraph 3, Section 4(c)
of Republic Act No. 8249. The Court of
Appeals did not notice this conspicuous misstep, since it entertained the
appeal. This fatal flaw committed by Estarija
did not toll the running of the period for him to perfect his appeal to the Sandiganbayan.
Because of Estarija’s failure to perfect his appeal to the Sandiganbayan within
the period granted therefor, the Decision of the RTC convicting him of
violating Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019 has thus become final and executory.
Inasmuch as the decision of the RTC has
long been final and executory, it can no longer be altered or modified.[8]
Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory,
it becomes immutable and unalterable.[9]
The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is
meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or
law, and whether or not made by the highest court of the land. The reason
is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound
practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of
courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law.
The RTC imposed upon Estarija the straight
penalty of seven (7) years. This is
erroneous. The penalty for violation of Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019
is imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen
years, and perpetual disqualification from public office. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the
offense is punished by a special law, the Court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum term shall not be less than the
minimum prescribed by the same. Thus, the correct penalty should have been imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to nine (9) years as
maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office. However,
since the decision of the RTC has long become final and executory, this Court
cannot modify the same.[10]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Per
Special Order No. 764, dated
** Per
Special Order No. 753, dated
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Teresita
Dy-Liacco Flores and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring. Rollo, pp.
41-52.
[2] Rollo, pp. 54-55.
[3] Records,
p. 1.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 51.
[7] Ungsod v. People, G.R. No. 158904,
[8] Eastland Construction and Development Corporation v.
Mortel, G.R. No. 165648,
[9]
[10]