ANICETA R. CO, NESTOR B. CO, AND EMMA L. ACEBEDO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

Co versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This case involves three barangay officials of Barangay 526 in Manila — Barangay Chairman Aniceta Co, Barangay Kagawad and Bids and Awards Committee Chairman Nestor Co, and Barangay Treasurer Emma Acebedo — who were charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the purchase of a motor vehicle for their barangay. The petitioners were convicted by the Regional Trial Court, and their conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case reached the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, but the Court's resolution turned not on the merits of the conviction, but on two critical procedural and jurisdictional questions: whether the petitioners used the wrong remedy in assailing the Court of Appeals decision, and whether the Court of Appeals even had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place. This case matters because it clarifies the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over certain anti-graft cases, and it reminds litigants that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for an appeal under Rule 45.

Procedural History

The case began with an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, charging the three petitioners with violating Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision dated September 7, 2022, finding all three petitioners guilty and sentencing them to imprisonment from six years and one month as minimum to ten years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction in a Decision dated December 20, 2024. Their Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution dated May 29, 2025. The petitioners then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court, captioned as a "Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65," alleging that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in affirming their conviction.

Facts

On November 10, 2014, Emma Acebedo, in her capacity as Barangay Treasurer, sent out an Invitation to Bid for the procurement of, among other items, one unit of motor vehicle. Several suppliers submitted bids, including Derexon Trading and General Merchandise, which tendered a bid price of 83,830 pesos for the motor vehicle. Aniceta Co, as Barangay Chairperson, approved the recommendation of Nestor Co, as Bids and Awards Committee Chairman, to award the bid to Derexon Trading as the lowest bidder. A Notice of Award was issued in the name of Carlos Castañeda of Derexon Trading, and a corresponding Purchase Order was issued.

However, when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between Aniceta Co and Derexon Trading, the deed indicated a purchase price of 120,283 pesos instead of the bid price of 83,830 pesos. Investigation by the Ombudsman later revealed that the subject vehicle was formerly owned by Dominador Co, Nestor's brother and Aniceta's brother-in-law. The vehicle had been mortgaged to secure a loan of 51,000 pesos and remained registered in Dominador Co's name from 1995 until the expiration of its latest registration in October 2017. Carlos Castañeda purchased the vehicle only on November 3, 2014, before selling it to Barangay 526. The petitioners denied knowledge of the prior ownership of the vehicle and claimed that the procurement was regularly done pursuant to proper procedure.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners availed themselves of the proper remedy in assailing the Court of Appeals Decision affirming their conviction.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals had appellate jurisdiction over the Regional Trial Court's Decision convicting the petitioners of violating Section 3, paragraph (e) of Republic Act Number 3019.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Republic Act Number 10660, provides:

Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: . . . Provided, . . . In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

This provision is central to the case because it vests exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the Regional Trial Court's Decision in the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, where the accused are public officers with salary grades below 27.

Rule 122, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal. — Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of the court with whom the notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice. The original and three copies of the transcript of stenographic notes, together with the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without undue delay. The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court.

This provision bears on the case because it places the duty of transmitting the records to the proper appellate court on the clerk of court, and the petitioners should not be prejudiced by the clerk's error in transmitting the records to the wrong court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy. The Court noted that while the petition was captioned as a "Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65," the allegations therein pertained to the merits of the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the conviction. The Court ruled that in determining the nature of an action, it is not the caption but the averments in the petition and the character of the relief sought that are controlling. The proper remedy to assail a Court of Appeals Decision is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is a continuation of the appellate process, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which is a limited form of review that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court emphasized that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court, and that these two remedies are mutually exclusive.

The Court also noted several other procedural infirmities: the petition was not accompanied by a certified true copy of the assailed Decision and all relevant pleadings and documents as required by Rule 65, Section 1; the verification was defective for failing to allege that the pleading was not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and the petition failed to allege the ultimate facts, issues involved, and grounds relied upon, being a mere narration of the proceedings below without any argument in support of the challenge to the Court of Appeals Decision.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not have appellate jurisdiction over the Regional Trial Court's Decision. Citing Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the Court ruled that it is the Sandiganbayan that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases involving violations of Republic Act Number 3019. Since the petitioners were low-ranking barangay officials with salary grades below 27, the Regional Trial Court had original jurisdiction, but the appeal from its Decision should have been taken to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals. The Court, citing the cases of Muñez versus People, Dizon versus People, Hunnob versus People, and Sideño versus People, held that the petitioners should not be prejudiced by the incorrect transmittal of the records of the case, since after the filing of the notice of appeal, it was incumbent upon the clerk of court to determine the proper appellate court having jurisdiction over the case before transmitting the records.

Doctrine

The proper remedy to assail a Decision, final order, or resolution of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is a continuation of the appellate process, and not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, which is an independent action that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. These two remedies are mutually exclusive, and a party cannot substitute certiorari under Rule 65 for an appeal under Rule 45 where the latter is available but was lost through fault or negligence.

Under Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases involving violations of Republic Act Number 3019. Where the accused are public officers with salary grades below 27, the regional trial court has original jurisdiction, but the appeal from its Decision must be taken to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals. A Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals without jurisdiction is void, and the accused should not be prejudiced by the clerk of court's error in transmitting the records to the wrong appellate court.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, but vacated the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals for want of jurisdiction, and directed the Court of Appeals to immediately remand the case records to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Manila, which shall transmit the same to the Sandiganbayan with utmost dispatch.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Regional Trial Court decisions in anti-graft cases under Republic Act Number 3019, even where the accused are low-ranking officials, and the Court of Appeals acts without jurisdiction in such appeals. Examiners like to use this case to test your mastery of the hierarchy of appellate remedies — Rule 45 versus Rule 65 — and your knowledge of the Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction under Presidential Decree Number 1606.