ANGEL FUELLAS DIZON, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Dizon versus People

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Angel Fuellas Dizon against the People of the Philippines. Dizon was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila of six counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents, and he timely filed a notice of appeal. The trouble is that his appeal was sent to the Court of Appeals when, by law, it belonged to the Sandiganbayan, because he was a low-ranking public officer. The case matters because it tells us who bears the blame when an appeal lands in the wrong court, and whether a convict may still be saved from that mistake. It is a lesson in jurisdiction, in the duty of the trial court to transmit records to the proper forum, and in the liberality of procedure where liberty is at stake.

Procedural History

Six separate informations for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision on December 23, 2014, finding Dizon guilty on all six counts and sentencing him for each count to imprisonment of six years and ten days of prision correccional as minimum to ten years and ten days of prision mayor as maximum, with perpetual special disqualification and a fine of 70,800 pesos.

Dizon filed a notice of appeal dated January 6, 2015, which the trial court acted upon by order dated February 2, 2015, directing that the case be elevated to the appellate tribunal. The records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals, which sent Dizon a notice to file his appellant's brief. He asked for and was granted three extensions of time to file that brief.

Dizon then noticed that his appeal had been erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan, together with his appellant's brief. The Court of Appeals denied the motion and dismissed the appeal for having been erroneously filed, faulting him for not moving promptly within the original fifteen-day period. His motion for reconsideration was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Dizon was an employee of the Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau of the City of Manila, holding the position of Clerk II and later serving as Special Collecting Officer. He was entrusted to collect monthly parking fees from various establishments and to forward those fees, together with the triplicate copies of the corresponding official receipts, to the City Treasurer of Manila. He was the only collecting officer for the payors covered by the receipts in question, although he admitted that there were instances when he collected fees directly at the offices of the payors.

In the course of his employment, discrepancies were discovered in the parking receipts he allegedly signed and issued. The amounts paid, collected, and remitted as parking fees did not match. The City Legal Office of Manila instructed City Personnel Officer Redencion Pitajen Caimbon to conduct a questioned document examination, using Dizon's Personnel Data Sheet as the standard for comparison. She issued a report concluding that the questioned handwritings and the standard handwriting revealed a strong indication that they were written by one and the same person. She admitted, however, that the receipts submitted to her were mere photocopies, not the duplicate or triplicate copies.

The six informations alleged that Dizon falsified official receipts by making it appear that a smaller amount had been paid, and then misappropriated the difference. In the first information, for example, the receipt appeared to show 200 pesos when the true amount was 12,000 pesos, leaving a difference of 11,800 pesos. In his defense, Dizon maintained that he was not the one who signed the receipts issued to the restaurant involved, and he explained the collection process of the City. The trial court convicted him, and the erroneous transmission of his appeal to the Court of Appeals followed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner's motion to endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan.
• Whether or not the petitioner's appeal, taken to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, should be dismissed on the ground that it was filed in the wrong court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249, amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, provides:

Section 4. Section 4 of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows: c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. 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 or 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 jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

This provision fixes where Dizon's appeal should have gone: because he held a position below salary grade 27, the Regional Trial Court had original jurisdiction, and the Sandiganbayan had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over its final judgment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Dizon and held that the petition is meritorious. It was undisputed that he was a low-ranking public officer with a salary grade below 27, so his appeal from the Regional Trial Court's judgment fell within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8249. His appeal was therefore erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals.

On the second issue, the Court held that the error was not primarily attributable to Dizon, because the duty to transmit the records to the proper court devolves upon the Regional Trial Court. Dizon timely filed his notice of appeal, and he did not specify that his appeal be taken to the Court of Appeals, precisely because it was not his duty to designate the court. The Court quoted the rule that in the notice of appeal it is not even required that the appellant indicate the court to which its appeal is being interposed, and that the requirement is merely directory, so that failure to comply with it, or error in the court indicated, is not fatal to the appeal.

The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Ulep versus People, where it held that the trial court was duty bound to forward the records of the case to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan, and that the judge was expected to know when appeals are to be taken to the Court of Appeals and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. The Court found no reason why the same ruling should not be made here.

The Court also addressed the Court of Appeals' reason for denying the motion, namely that Dizon moved belatedly. It pointed out that the motion was filed within the extended period to appeal, which the Court of Appeals itself had granted, and that by granting his motions for extension, the appellate court had already given him the impression that it had jurisdiction over his appeal. The erroneous transmittal by the Regional Trial Court, and the filing of the motion beyond the original fifteen-day period, should not be taken against him, else his appeal would suffer an injudicious dismissal.

Finally, the Court observed that Dizon had raised substantial arguments in his appeal, which justified the relaxation of the rules. He argued that the prosecution should have presented the billing statements issued by the City of Manila, from which the actual amount billed, and the difference from what was collected, could be ascertained. He argued that the billing statements were received by the utility personnel of the private entities, opening the possibility that someone other than him falsified the receipts. And he argued that the testimony of the handwriting expert should have been considered with more caution, since her own report stated that no conclusive opinion could be rendered because the submitted questioned handwritings were mere photocopies. A more thorough review and appreciation of the evidence, and a proper application of the imposable penalties, by the Sandiganbayan, would do well to assuage the petitioner that his appeal is decided scrupulously.

Doctrine

First, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases involving public officers occupying positions below salary grade 27, whether the regional trial court acted in its original or its appellate jurisdiction. The regional trial court retains exclusive original jurisdiction over such cases.

Second, the duty to transmit the records of a case to the proper court on appeal devolves upon the trial court, not upon the accused. In the notice of appeal, the appellant is not required to indicate the court to which the appeal is being interposed; the requirement is merely directory, and an error in the court indicated is not fatal to the appeal.

Third, where the trial court erroneously transmits the records to the wrong court, the accused should not be penalized for that error, especially where he timely filed his notice of appeal and moved to rectify the mistake within the extended period granted by the appellate court. The rules of procedure may be relaxed where substantial arguments are raised and a person's liberty is at stake.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were set aside, and the Court of Appeals was directed to remand the records, together with all the oral and documentary evidence, to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 42, for transmission to the Sandiganbayan with reasonable dispatch.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is the trial court, not the appellant, that bears the duty to send the records to the proper court, and an appeal wrongly routed is not fatal where the accused timely appealed and promptly sought correction. Examiners use this case to test appellate jurisdiction over low-ranking public officers under salary grade 27, and the liberal application of the rules of procedure in appeals involving liberty.