Cenita M. Cariaga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180010, July 30, 2010
Petitioner's former counsel erroneously appealed her conviction to the Court of Appeals instead of to the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner pleaded that Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court which mandated the dismissal of cases erroneously appealed to the Court of Appeals be relaxed and the Court of Appeals be directed to forward the records of the case to the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court, in granting petitioner's prayer held that since the appeal involved a criminal case and the possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse is great, a relaxation of the Rules was warranted. The rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided
Cenita M. Cariaga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180010, July 30, 2010
G.R. No. 180010; July 30, 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner Cenita M. Cariaga is a municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela whose been charged with three separate cases before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela, all for malversation of public funds. Cariaga was convicted for the said cases. Hence, an appeal was filed before the Court of Appeals.
WHETHER THE APPEAL OF [PETITIONER] WRONGFULLY DIRECTED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT OR BE ENDORSED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE SANDIGANBAYAN WHERE THE APPEAL SHALL THEN PROCEED IN DUE COURSE.
HELD:
Since the appeal involves criminal cases, and the possibility of a person being deprived of liberty due to a procedural lapse militates against the Courts dispensation of justice, the Court grants petitioners plea for a relaxation of the Rules.
For rules of procedure must be viewed as tools to facilitate the attainment of justice, such that any rigid and strict application thereof which results in technicalities tending to frustrate substantial justice must always be avoided.
In Ulep v. People, the Court remanded the case to the Sandiganbayan when it found that
x x x petitioners failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent. The omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had more to lose had that been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction which was exactly what happened in the CA.
The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records of the case to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned ordered the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to the great prejudice of petitioner. Cases involving government employees with a salary grade lower than 27 are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was expected to know and should have known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals are to be taken to the CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. He should have conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility specially in cases such as this where a persons liberty was at stake. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The slapdash work of petitioners former counsel and the trial courts apparent ignorance of the law effectively conspired to deny petitioner the remedial measures to question her conviction.[11]
While the negligence of counsel generally binds the client, the Court has made exceptions thereto, especially in criminal cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law; when its application will result in outright deprivation of the clients liberty or property; or where the interests of justice so require. [12] It can not be gainsaid that the case of petitioner can fall under any of these exceptions.
Moreover, a more thorough review and appreciation of the evidence for the prosecution and defense as well as a proper application of the imposable penalties in the present case by the Sandiganbayan would do well to assuage petitioner that her appeal is decided scrupulously.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29514 are SET ASIDE. Let the records of the cases be FORWARDED to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition.
Section 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. x x x.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
That appellate jurisdiction in this case pertains to the Sandiganbayan 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 exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
x x x x
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 their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. x x x (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied).
Comments
Post a Comment