G.R. No.
227577, January 24, 2018
ANGEL FUELLAS DIZON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The prosecution averred that petitioner, being then an employee of the Manila Traffic
and Parking Bureau of the City of Manila with the position of Special Collecting Officer,
was entrusted to collect monthly parking fees from various establishments, and
subsequently, forward such fees, together with the triplicate copies of the
corresponding O.R.s, to the City Treasurer of Manila.12 In the course of petitioner's
employment, several discrepancies were discovered in the parking receipts which he
allegedly signed and issued, whereby the amounts paid, collected, and remitted as
parking fees do not match with each other.13 In his defense, petitioner maintained that
he was not the one who signed the O.R.s issued to Golden Fortune Seafood
Restaurant.18 He further explained the process of the City's collection of monthly
parking fees; particularly, that upon the execution of the memorandum of agreement
between their office and the private entity pertaining to parking privileges and payment
of fees, a billing statement will be delivered to the establishment, and thereafter, the
latter's representative will pay at their office for which he will be issued a
receipt.19 Petitioner, however, admitted that there were instances when he collected the
fees directly at the offices of the payors, and added that he was the only collecting
officer with respect to the payors covered by the subject O.R.s.20
the RTC found petitioner guilty of six (6) counts of Malversation of Public Funds Through
Falsification of Public Documents, Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal25 before
the RTC, which was acted upon in an Order26 dated February 2, 2015. Accordingly, the
RTC ordered the case to "be elevated to the Appellate Tribunal for appropriate action."
As it turned out; the records were transmitted by the RTC to the CA.
However, petitioner subsequently noticed that his appeal was erroneously taken to the
CA instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction over his case
pursuant to Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8249.33 Thus, to rectify the error, he
filed the Motion to Endorse Case to the Sandiganbayan,34 as well as the appellant's
brief,35 before the CA.
the CA denied petitioner's Motion to Endorse, and consequently, dismissed his appeal
for having been erroneously filed.37 It opined that petitioner should have promptly
moved for the endorsement of the case within the original period of fifteen (15) days
instead of requesting for numerous extensions and belatedly claiming that the appeal
has been filed in the wrong court.38
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in dismissing
petitioner's Motion to Endorse.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
It is undisputed that petitioner is a low-ranking public officer having a salary grade
below 27, whose appeal from the RTC's ruling convicting him of six (6) counts of
Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents falls within the
appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
"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,
Thus, since petitioner's case properly falls within the appellate jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan, his appeal was erroneously taken to the CA.
This notwithstanding, the Court finds that the foregoing error is not primarily
attributable to petitioner, since the duty to transmit the records to the proper court
devolves upon the RTC.
