8/11/2019 2 Cariaga v People
1/3
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 180010 July 30, 2010
CENITA M. CARIAGA, Petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J .:
In issue in the present petition for review is one of
jurisdiction.
By Resolutions of May 28, 2007 and September 27, 2007, theCourt
of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR No. 29514, "People of thePhilippines v.
Cenita Cariaga," dismissed the appeal of CenitaCariaga (petitioner)
for lack of jurisdiction over the subjectmatter.
Petitioner, as the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela
witha Salary Grade of 24, was charged before the Regional
TrialCourt (RTC) of Cauayan City in Isabela with three counts
ofmalversation of public funds, defined under Article 217 of
theRevised Penal Code.
The Information in the f irst case, Criminal Case No.
1293,reads:
That on or about the year 1993 or sometime prior or
subsequentthereto in the Municipality of Cabatuan, Province of
Isabela, andwithin the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-namedaccused, [C]ENITA M. CARIAGA, a public officer, beingthe
Municipal Treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela, and as such isaccountable
for taxes, fees and monies collected and/orreceived by her by
reason of her position, acting in relation toher office and taking
advantage of the same, did then and there,willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, misappropriate andconvert to her personal use the
amount of TWO THOUSANDSEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE PESOS
(P2,785.00)representing the remittance of the Municipality of
Cabatuan tothe Provincial Government of Isabela as the latters
share in thereal property taxes collected, which amount was not
received bythe Provincial Government of Isabela, to the damage
andprejudice of the government in the amount aforestated.
CONTRARY TO LAW .1 (underscoring supplied)
The two other Informations in the second and third
criminalcases, Nos. 1294 and 1295, contain the same
allegationsexcept the malversed amounts which are P25,627.38and
P20,735.13, respectively .2
Branch 20 of the Cauayan RTC, by Joint Decision of June 22,2004
,3 convicted petitioner in the three cases, disposing
asfollows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused CENITA M. CARIAGA,GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime ofMALVERSATION for which she is
charged in the three (3)
separate informations and in the absence of any
mitigatingcircumstance, hereby sentences her to suffer:
1. In Crim. Case No. Br.20-1293, an indeterminatepenalty of from
FOUR (4) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY ofPRISION CORRECCIONAL as minimum to
SEVEN (7)YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
PRISION MAYOR as maximum and its accessorypenalty of perpetual
special disqualification and a fineof Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty Five(P2,785.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment
incase of insolvency. Cost against the accused.
2. In Crim. Case No. Br. 20-1294, an indeterminatepenalty of
from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY ofPRISION MAYOR as minimum to
EIGHTEEN (18)YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY ofRECLUSION
TEMPORAL as maximum and to suffer
the accessory penalty of perpetual specialdisqualification and
to pay a fine of Twenty FiveThousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven
(P25,627.00)Pesos. She is ordered to indemnify the
ProvincialGovernment of Isabela Twenty Five Thousand SixHundred
Twenty Seven (P25,627.00) Pesos, withoutsubsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency. Costagainst the accused.
3. In Crim. Case No. Br. 20-1295, an indeterminatepenalty of
from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY ofPRISION MAYOR as minimum to
FOURTEEN (14)YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY ofRECLUSION
TEMPORAL as maximum, and to suffer
the accessory penalty of perpetual specialdisqualification and a
fine of Twenty Thousand SevenHundred Thirty (P20,730.00) Pesos,
without subsidiaryimprisonment in case of insolvency. The bailbonds
arecancelled. Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner, through counsel, in time filed a Notice of
Appeal,stating that he intended to appeal the tr ial courts
decision to theCourt of Appeals.
By Resolution of May 28, 2007 ,4 the Court of Appeals
dismissedpetitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that
it is theSandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate
jurisdictionthereon. Held the appellate court:
Concomitantly, jurisdiction over the offense is vested with
theRegional Trial Court considering that the position of
MunicipalTreasurer corresponds to a salary grade below 27. Pursuant
toSection 4 of [Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended byRepublic
Act No. 8249], it is the Sandiganbayan, to theexclusion of all
others, which enjoys appellate jurisdiction overthe offense.
Evidently, the appeal to this Court of the convictionfor
malversation of public funds was improperly andimprovidently made.
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied byResolution
of September 27, 2007 .5 Hence, the present petitionfor review,
petitioner defining the issues as follows:
I. WHETHER . . ., CONSIDERING THE CLEAR ANDGRAVE ERROR COMMITTED
BY COUNSEL OF[PETITIONER] AND OTHER EXTRA-ORDINARYCIRCUMSTANCES,
THE APPEAL OF[PETITIONER] WRONGFULLY DIRECTED TO THECOURT OF
APPEALS BE DISMISSEDOUTRIGHTOR BE ENDORSED ANDTRANSMITTED TO THE
SANDIGANBAYAN WHERETHE APPEAL SHALL THEN PROCEED IN DUECOURSE.
II. WHETHER . . ., IN CONSIDERATION OFSUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN A
CRIMINAL CASE, NEWTRIAL BE GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO
BEUNDERTAKEN IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN(ALTERNATIVELY IN THE REGIONAL
TRIAL
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt1
8/11/2019 2 Cariaga v People
2/3
COURT) SO THAT CRUCIAL EVIDENCE OFPETITIONERBE ADMITTED .6
Petitioner, now admitting the procedural error committed by
herformer counsel, implores the Court to relax the Rules to
affordher an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the
merits andrequests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of
thecases to the Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial
justice.
Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. xx
x.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall notbe
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be
dismissedoutright. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
That appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains to
theSandiganbayan is clear. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.1606
,7 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, so directs :8
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan shall exerciseexclusive
original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
x x x x
In cases where none of the accused are occupying
positionscorresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher , as prescribed
inthe said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
officersmentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof
shall bevested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan
trial court,municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
court, as the casemay be, pursuant to their respective
jurisdictions as provided inBatas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended.
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders
ofregional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided. xx x (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).
Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of
aperson being deprived of liberty due to a procedural
lapsemilitates against the Courts dispensation of justice, the
Courtgrants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.
1avvphi1
For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate
theattainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict
applicationthereof which results in technicalities tending to
frustratesubstantial justice must always be avoided .9
In Ulep v. People ,10 the Court remanded the case to
theSandiganbayan when it found that
x x x petitioners failure to designate the proper forum for
herappeal was inadvertent. The omission did not appear to be
adilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had more to
losehad that been the case as her appeal could be dismissedoutright
for lack of jurisdiction which was exactly whathappened in the
CA.
The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward
therecords of the case to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan.
It
is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned ordered thepertinent
records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to thegreat prejudice
of petitioner. Cases involving governmentemployees with a salary
grade lower than 27 are fairly common,albeit regrettably so. The
judge was expected to know andshould have known the law and the
rules of procedure. Heshould have known when appeals are to be
taken to the CA andwhen they should be forwarded to the
Sandiganbayan. He
should have conscientiously and carefully observed
thisresponsibility specially in cases such as this where a
personsliberty was at stake. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
The slapdash work of petitioners former counsel and the
trialcourts apparent ignorance of the law effectively conspired
todeny petitioner the remedial measures to question herconviction
.11
While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client,
theCourt has made exceptions thereto, especially in criminal
caseswhere reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives
theclient of due process of law; when its application will result
inoutright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or
wherethe interests of justice so require. 12 It can not be gainsaid
thatthe case of petitioner can fall under any of these
exceptions.
Moreover, a more thorough review and appreciation of theevidence
for the prosecution and defense as well as a properapplication of
the imposable penalties in the present case by theSandiganbayan
would do well to assuage petitioner that herappeal is decided
scrupulously.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appealsin
CA-G.R. CR No. 29514 are SET ASIDE. Let the records ofthe cases be
FORWARDED to the Sandiganbayan for properdisposition.
The Presiding Judge of Branch 20, Henedino P. Eduarte, of
theCauayan City Regional Trial Court is warned against
committingthe same procedural error, under pain of
administrativesanction.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate JusticeChairperson
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD * Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certifythat the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
theopinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180010_2010.html#fnt6
