G.R. No. 175074 ; August 31, 2011
JESUS TORRES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jesus U. Torres, the Principal of Viga Rural Development High School (VRDHS), was charged with Malversation of Public Funds before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes. The Information alleged that on or about April 27, 1994, he encashed three PNB checks totaling ₱196,654.54, representing salaries and allowances of school employees, and misappropriated the amount. The prosecution established that it was customary for the school’s collection and disbursing officer, Edmundo Lazado, to endorse the salary checks and for Torres to encash them and deliver the cash for distribution. Torres encashed the checks on April 27, 1994, but did not return to the school. His defense was that after encashing the checks, he proceeded to Manila for medical attention due to chest pain, and on April 29, 1994, he was robbed by three armed men who took his bag containing the money. The RTC convicted Torres of malversation on August 31, 2005. On September 8, 2005, Torres filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 10, 2006, he filed a Manifestation and Motion acknowledging he erroneously filed the appeal with the CA instead of the Sandiganbayan, and prayed for the case to be referred to the proper court. The CA dismissed the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction in a Resolution dated September 6, 2006, and denied his motion for reconsideration on October 17, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal outright instead of certifying the case to the proper court (the Sandiganbayan).

RULING

The petition is without merit. The CA correctly dismissed the appeal. Under Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 , the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the RTC in cases within its jurisdiction. Therefore, the CA had no jurisdiction to review the RTC’s judgment. While the designation of the wrong court in a notice of appeal does not necessarily invalidate it, the correction must be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Here, the RTC decision was promulgated on August 31, 2005, the notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2005, but the error was only sought to be corrected on February 10, 2006, which was beyond the appeal period. Consequently, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall be dismissed outright and not transferred, the CA’s dismissal was proper. The Court further noted that, even on the merits, Torres’s arguments would fail, as a school principal entrusted with public funds is an accountable officer under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The petition was denied. (A separate Dissenting Opinion by Justice Velasco argued for a liberal application of the rules to remand the case to the Sandiganbayan, citing gross negligence of counsel and the deprivation of liberty at stake, but this view did not prevail.)