G.R. No. 136974 , August 27, 2002
SALVADOR K. MOLL, petitioner, vs. HON. MAMERTO M. BUBAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 18 and ATTY. NICETO N. VILLAMIN, Prosecutor II, Tabaco Albay, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Salvador K. Moll, former Vice Mayor of Malinao, Albay, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and was sentenced to imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office. On November 3, 1998, petitioner, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the RTC gave due course on November 4, 1998. On November 12, 1998, the last day of the reglementary period to appeal, petitioner filed a “Manifestation/Motion” withdrawing his first notice of appeal and filing a second notice of appeal directed to the Sandiganbayan. The RTC granted this motion on the same day. The respondent prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the first notice of appeal was already perfected, thus divesting the RTC of jurisdiction, and that procedural defects existed in the second notice. On December 10, 1998, the RTC issued an Order granting the prosecution’s motion and reinstating its November 4, 1998 Order giving due course to the appeal to the Court of Appeals. The RTC affirmed this Order on January 5, 1999. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders of December 10, 1998 and January 5, 1999, which directed petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, thereby effectively denying petitioner’s right to appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Under Republic Act No. 8249 , the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 where the accused, like petitioner who was a municipal vice-mayor (Salary Grade 25), holds a position below Salary Grade ’27’. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the appeal. The designation of the wrong appellate court in the first notice of appeal did not invalidate it, as such a requirement is merely directory. Petitioner’s “Manifestation/Motion” was not a withdrawal of appeal under Section 12, Rule 122 that results in finality, but a mere correction to bring the appeal to the proper court. While the RTC loses jurisdiction upon perfection of an appeal, it retains jurisdiction to issue orders for the protection and preservation of rights not litigated by the appeal, such as correcting the appellate court designation before transmittal of records. The RTC’s Orders directing the appeal to the wrong court would result in its certain dismissal, depriving petitioner of his right to appeal. The procedural lapses cited by the prosecution (e.g., lack of notice, lack of notice of hearing) were not fatal; the Sandiganbayan may, in its discretion and in the interest of justice, give due course to the appeal. The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the RTC’s Orders of December 10, 1998 and January 5, 1999, and REINSTATED the RTC’s Order of November 12, 1998 giving due course to petitioner’s appeal to the Sandiganbayan.