CENITA M. CARIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Cariaga versus People of the Philippines

The Case

Cenita Cariaga, the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City of three counts of malversation of public funds. She then appealed, but her former counsel directed the notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction, and she came to the Supreme Court asking that the rules be relaxed so that her appeal could reach the correct court. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest statement that the Sandiganbayan holds exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts in cases involving public officers below Salary Grade 27, and that a procedural misdirection caused by counsel's negligence and the trial court's own error will not be allowed to deprive an accused of liberty without a real appeal.

Procedural History

Cariaga was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City, Isabela, with three counts of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Branch 20 of that court, in a joint decision dated June 22, 2004, convicted her in all three cases and imposed indeterminate penalties, perpetual special disqualification, and fines, and ordered her to indemnify the Provincial Government of Isabela. Through counsel, she filed a notice of appeal stating that she intended to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and the trial court approved the notice and directed its clerk to transmit the records to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, by resolution of May 28, 2007, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the offense. Her motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution of September 27, 2007. She then filed with the Supreme Court the present petition for review, asking that the appeal be endorsed and transmitted to the Sandiganbayan, or alternatively that a new trial be granted so that crucial evidence could be admitted.

Facts

Cariaga served as municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela, a position with a Salary Grade of 24, and as such was accountable for taxes, fees, and monies collected by reason of her office. Three separate informations were filed against her, each alleging that she willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously took, misappropriated, and converted to her personal use public funds for which she was accountable. The amounts involved were 2,785 pesos, representing the municipality's remittance to the Provincial Government of Isabela as the latter's share in real property taxes collected; 25,627 pesos and 38 centavos; and 20,735 pesos and 13 centavos.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all three cases. In the first case it imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum to seven years, four months, and one day of prision mayor as maximum, with perpetual special disqualification and a fine of 2,785 pesos. In the second and third cases it imposed higher indeterminate penalties reaching reclusion temporal as maximum, with perpetual special disqualification and fines, and ordered indemnification of the Provincial Government of Isabela.

Acting through counsel, she filed a notice of appeal stating that she intended to appeal to the Court of Appeals, and the trial court approved it and ordered the records forwarded to that court. That direction was wrong: because her position carried a salary grade below 27, the appeal belonged to the Sandiganbayan. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal outright, and the Supreme Court was asked to correct the course.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
• Whether or not the appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals may be transferred or endorsed to the Sandiganbayan instead of being dismissed outright.
• Whether or not the negligence of petitioner's former counsel and the trial court's error in forwarding the records to the wrong court may be excused in the interest of substantial justice.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.

This is the rule that the Court of Appeals applied and that the Supreme Court had to weigh against substantial justice.

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Republic Act Number 8249, provides:

Section 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: 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 its appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

This is the provision that fixes appellate jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, for a municipal treasurer below Salary Grade 27.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals was correct that appellate jurisdiction pertains to the Sandiganbayan. Since Cariaga's position as municipal treasurer corresponded to a salary grade below 27, the Regional Trial Court had original jurisdiction, and under Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts. The appeal to the Court of Appeals was therefore improperly and improvidently taken.

On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that under Section 2 of Rule 50 an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. Yet the Court held that this rule must yield where its rigid application would frustrate substantial justice, especially in a criminal case where a person's liberty is at stake. Rules of procedure, the Court said, are tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, and any rigid and strict application that results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.

On the third issue, the Court found that the failure to designate the proper forum was inadvertent and not a dilatory tactic, and that the trial court itself was duty bound to forward the records to the Sandiganbayan but instead sent them to the wrong court. The Court stressed that the judge was expected to know and should have known the law and the rules of procedure, and should have known when appeals are taken to the Court of Appeals and when they are forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court recognized exceptions, particularly in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, where application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client's liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require. Cariaga's case, the Court held, falls under these exceptions.

Doctrine

First, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases involving public officers occupying positions below Salary Grade 27, to the exclusion of the Court of Appeals. Second, while Section 2 of Rule 50 ordinarily requires that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals be dismissed outright rather than transferred, the Supreme Court may relax this rule in the interest of substantial justice, especially in criminal cases where the accused's liberty is at stake. Third, the general rule that the negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions: where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process, where strict application would result in outright deprivation of liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require. Fourth, trial courts are duty bound to forward the records of the case to the proper appellate forum, and a judge's ignorance of the law in this respect may be met with a warning of administrative sanction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and ordered the records of the cases forwarded to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition, while warning the presiding judge of Branch 20 of the Cauayan City Regional Trial Court against committing the same procedural error under pain of administrative sanction.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over regional trial court judgments in cases of public officers below Salary Grade 27, and an appeal misdirected to the Court of Appeals may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice where liberty is at stake. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over appeals in Sandiganbayan cases and the exceptions to the rule that counsel's negligence binds the client.