JOEL PANCHO BIGCAS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Joel Pancho Bigcas, a barangay kagawad, was charged with violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. The prosecution evidence established that complainant Lorlene Gonzales applied for an earth moving permit. Bigcas, as chair of the barangay’s Council of Environment and Natural Resources, approached her after a session, volunteered to verify documents at City Hall, and asked for fare money. Lorlene gave him PHP 200.00. In a subsequent session, Bigcas reported that the permit could not be issued as the area was a watershed, presenting documents and a record of the PHP 200.00 expense. Lorlene inquired if asking for money was barangay practice, which the barangay captain denied. Bigcas later tried to return the money to Lorlene and her sons, claiming it was a loan, but they refused, insisting he had asked for money, not a loan. Bigcas testified that he accepted the money as a loan due to Lorlene’s insistence and harassment, after explaining he had no funds for transportation. The RTC convicted Bigcas. He filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially accepted the appeal and affirmed the conviction. However, upon Bigcas’s motion for reconsideration, the CA dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that under Republic Act No. 10660, appeals from RTC decisions in cases under R.A. No. 3019 where the penalty imposed does not exceed six years shall be to the Sandiganbayan, not the CA. The CA subsequently noted without action his further motion and issued an entry of judgment. Bigcas filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Bigcas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition is denied. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Republic Act No. 10660, which amended the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provides that in cases where the offense charged is under R.A. No. 3019 and the penalty prescribed by law does not exceed six years, the appeal from the RTC decision lies with the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals. The penalty imposed on Bigcas by the RTC was an indeterminate sentence of six years and one month as minimum to seven years as maximum. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty determines the appeal jurisdiction. Since the maximum penalty (seven years) exceeds six years, the proper appellate court was indeed the Court of Appeals. However, the Court found that the CA’s dismissal was based on its erroneous belief that the applicable penalty was the minimum (six years and one month). Despite this error, the CA’s ultimate dismissal order was correct because Bigcas’s mode of appeal was fatally defective. His notice of appeal indicated an appeal to the CA “in degree of appeal,” which is a petition for review under Rule 42, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. For convictions where the penalty imposed exceeds six years, an ordinary appeal to the CA via notice of appeal is the proper remedy. By filing the wrong mode of appeal, Bigcas failed to perfect his appeal within the reglementary period. The trial court’s acceptance of the defective notice did not confer jurisdiction on the CA. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the CA’s dismissal, as its action, though based on a different rationale, was legally correct. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right but statutory, and procedural rules must be strictly followed.
