G.R. No. 180334 . February 18, 2009.
VIRGILIO V. QUILESTE, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio V. Quileste, a Revenue Collection Officer II, was charged with Malversation of public funds before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dapa, Surigao del Norte. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. Quileste appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed his appeal outright because he failed to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) a copy of his Motion for Extension to File Appellant’s Brief and his Appellant’s Brief, in violation of procedural rules. His motion for reconsideration was also denied for failure to attach the required registry receipt and explanation for resorting to registered mail. Quileste filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing his appeal was dismissed merely on a technicality and questioning the prosecution’s failure to present certain evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition and reverse the CA’s dismissal of Quileste’s appeal.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that Quileste lost his right to appeal. The proper appellate court for his case, being a conviction for malversation by a low-ranking public officer (salary grade below 27) rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, is the Sandiganbayan, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended. By erroneously appealing to the CA, and with the CA dismissing the appeal, the period to appeal to the correct court (the Sandiganbayan) lapsed. Consequently, the RTC Decision became final and executory. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. Given this disposition, a discussion on the merits of his appeal was rendered pointless.