VIRGILIO V. QUILESTE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Quileste versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Quileste versus People of the Philippines, decided by the Supreme Court in February 2009. Virgilio Quileste, a Revenue Collection Officer of the Bureau of Internal Revenue assigned to Dapa, Surigao del Norte, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code for a cash shortage of 265,606.26 pesos. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal on technical grounds, and he then came to the Supreme Court. The case matters far beyond the fate of one erring collector: it is a stern lesson on jurisdiction and on the nature of the right to appeal, teaching that an appeal taken to the wrong court is no appeal at all, and that the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the period fixed by law.

Procedural History

The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao filed an Information for malversation against Quileste before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, in Dapa, Surigao del Norte, where he pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial, the trial court, in a decision dated June 13, 2006, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of malversation, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of reimbursement of the funds as analogous to voluntary surrender. It sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years, eight months and one day, as maximum, both of reclusion temporal, with perpetual special disqualification and costs, and imposed no fine in view of the reimbursement.

Quileste appealed, but he brought his appeal to the Court of Appeals. In a Resolution dated June 8, 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal outright because he failed to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General copies of his motion for extension to file appellant's brief and of his appellant's brief, in violation of Section 3 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. His motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated September 21, 2007, the Court of Appeals noting that the registry receipt for the alleged registered mail service was not attached, and that no explanation was given for resorting to registered mail, in violation of the rules on service and proof of service. Quileste then filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that his appeal was dismissed on a mere technicality despite substantial compliance.

Facts

Quileste was a Revenue Collection Officer II of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a low-ranking public officer accountable for public funds under his control and custody. On or about June 25, 2002, upon examination of the cash and accounts from the accountable forms, he failed to produce and to have fully forthcoming upon official demand a cash shortage in the total amount of 265,606.26 pesos, which the prosecution alleged he willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took and misappropriated for his own personal use and benefit.

He was charged with malversation before the Regional Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte, and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted him, mitigating the penalty because he had reimbursed the shortage.

Instead of appealing to the Sandiganbayan, which the law designates as the appellate court over final judgments of regional trial courts in cases of this kind, Quileste appealed to the Court of Appeals. That court dismissed the appeal for his failure to serve copies of his motion and brief on the Office of the Solicitor General and for defects in proof of service. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the period to appeal to the correct court had long lapsed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Quileste's appeal on technical grounds despite an alleged substantial compliance with the rules on service.
• Whether or not Quileste's appeal was taken to the proper court, and if not, what the consequence is for his right to appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended by Republic Act Number 7975 and Republic Act Number 8249, defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and the regional trial courts, and provides:

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 provision is decisive: because Quileste held a position below Salary Grade 27, the regional trial court correctly tried him, but the appeal from its judgment belonged exclusively to the Sandiganbayan, not to the Court of Appeals.

Part III, Rule XI, Section 1 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan states:

Section 1. Ordinary Appeal. — Appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by ordinary appeal under Rules 41 and 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 122 and 124 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, as the case may be.

This confirms that the appeal should have been an ordinary appeal to the Sandiganbayan, governed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Section 3 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court, which the Court of Appeals applied, provides:

Sec. 3. When brief for the appellant to be filed. - Within thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.

Quileste violated this requirement when he failed to serve copies of his motion and brief on the Office of the Solicitor General, the appellee.

Section 13 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, on proof of service, provides:

SEC. 13. Proof of service. - Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof of the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

Quileste's failure to attach the registry receipt meant he had no proof of service, a defect the Court of Appeals correctly counted against him.

Section 11 of Rule 13 provides:

SEC. 11. Priorities in modes of service and filing.—Whenever practicable, the service and filing of pleadings and other papers shall be done personally. Except with respect to papers emanating from the court, a resort to other modes must be accompanied by a written explanation why the service or filing was not done personally. A violation of this Rule may be cause to consider the paper as not filed.

Quileste gave no explanation for serving by registered mail, another procedural lapse.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition necessarily fails, but not because of the technical defects alone. It went to the root of the matter: the appeal was filed in the wrong court. Quileste was a low-ranking public officer with a salary grade below 27, so the regional trial court correctly had exclusive original jurisdiction over the malversation charge. But under Section 4 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts in such cases. Quileste should therefore have appealed to the Sandiganbayan within fifteen days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from.

On the second issue, the Court held that by lodging his appeal with the Court of Appeals, which erred in taking cognizance of it even as it dismissed it on technical grounds, the period within which to appeal to the proper court lapsed. Quileste thus lost his right to appeal. The Court stressed that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner provided for by law. Consequently, he could not come before the Supreme Court to question the dismissal of his appeal, because the trial court's decision had become final and executory upon the expiration of the period to appeal. For this reason, the Court said it would be pointless to further discuss the merits of the case, including his argument that the prosecution failed to present the cash book and other documentary evidence.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is a mere statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and within the period provided by law. Second, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period fixed by law is mandatory, and failure to do so renders the judgment final and executory. Third, jurisdiction over appeals in malversation cases depends on the salary grade of the accused: where none of the accused occupies a position of Salary Grade 27 or higher, the regional trial court has exclusive original jurisdiction, but the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over its final judgments, resolutions or orders. Fourth, an appeal taken to the wrong court does not toll or preserve the period to appeal to the correct court; once that period lapses, the right to appeal is lost. Fifth, procedural rules on service and proof of service, such as the requirement of serving the appellee and attaching the registry receipt, are not idle formalities, and their violation may cause the pleading to be considered not filed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Quileste's appeal, with costs against him, leaving his conviction by the trial court final and executory.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and an appeal taken to the wrong court is no appeal at all, so the judgment becomes final and executory. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction over malversation by low-ranking public officers, the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and the rule that technical rules on service and proof of service bind litigants.