Posted by: Stephanie Jurgen Tuquib on 19 July 2018
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.
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.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon. Petitioner, admitting the procedural error committed by her former counsel, implores the Court to relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits and requests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice.
ISSUE:
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.
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.
