GR 169519; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169519 ; July 17, 2009
IRENORIO B. BALABA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Irenorio B. Balaba, the Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guindulman, Bohol, was charged with Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. A 1993 audit revealed a total cash shortage of ₱114,186.34 under his accountability. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Loay, Bohol, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him accordingly in a Decision dated December 9, 2002.
On January 14, 2003, Balaba filed a Notice of Appeal, designating the Court of Appeals as the appellate court. He subsequently filed his Appellant’s Brief. The Office of the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was filed with the wrong court. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated December 15, 2004, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that exclusive appellate jurisdiction belonged to the Sandiganbayan. Balaba’s motion for reconsideration, wherein he sought to correct the error and have the case certified to the Sandiganbayan, was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Balaba’s appeal instead of allowing its transfer to the Sandiganbayan.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the dismissal was legally correct. Under Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 , the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts in cases within its original jurisdiction, such as this malversation case against a public officer. Therefore, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to act on the appeal.
The Court cited the ruling in Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, which states that while an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal, the correction must be made within the 15-day period to appeal from the trial court’s judgment. If the correction is sought beyond this period, the rule under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court applies: “An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.” In this case, the trial court’s decision was promulgated on December 9, 2002. Balaba only sought to correct the jurisdictional error in his motion for reconsideration filed on January 27, 2005, long after the reglementary period to appeal had expired. Consequently, the Court of Appeals acted properly in dismissing the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction.