GR 180010; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180010; July 30, 2010
CENITA M. CARIAGA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Cenita M. Cariaga, the Municipal Treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela (Salary Grade 24), was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City with three counts of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. The amounts involved were P2,785.00, P25,627.38, and P20,735.13. The RTC, Branch 20, convicted her in a Joint Decision dated June 22, 2004, imposing penalties including imprisonment and fines. Petitioner, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction via Resolutions dated May 28, 2007, and September 27, 2007. It held that pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case lies with the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, because the offense was committed by a public officer in relation to her office.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and if so, whether the Supreme Court can relax procedural rules to transfer the case to the Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice.
RULING
The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals and ordered the records forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. The Court affirmed that the dismissal by the Court of Appeals was technically correct under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the outright dismissal of an improper appeal and does not provide for its transfer. Jurisdiction was indeed with the Sandiganbayan, as the law provides that while the RTC properly exercised original jurisdiction over the petitioner (Salary Grade below 27), exclusive appellate jurisdiction rests with the Sandiganbayan for offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office.
However, the Court relaxed procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. While the negligence of counsel in filing the appeal to the wrong court generally binds the client, exceptions exist, particularly in criminal cases where such negligence results in the outright deprivation of liberty or where justice so requires. The Court found that a strict application would deprive the petitioner of her right to appeal her conviction. To ensure a scrupulous review of the evidence and the proper application of penalties, the Court directed the transfer of the case records to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition, warning the RTC judge against committing the same procedural error.