This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding an appeal that was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the proper appellate court, the Sandiganbayan.
The key points are:
1) Irenorio Balaba was convicted by the regional trial court of malversation of public funds. He filed his notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving public officials.
2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Balaba argued this was an error and the case should have been certified to the Sandiganbayan.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding an appeal that was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the proper appellate court, the Sandiganbayan.
The key points are:
1) Irenorio Balaba was convicted by the regional trial court of malversation of public funds. He filed his notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving public officials.
2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Balaba argued this was an error and the case should have been certified to the Sandiganbayan.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding an appeal that was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the proper appellate court, the Sandiganbayan.
The key points are:
1) Irenorio Balaba was convicted by the regional trial court of malversation of public funds. He filed his notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases involving public officials.
2) The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Balaba argued this was an error and the case should have been certified to the Sandiganbayan.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not
IRENORIO B. BALABA, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent. TOPIC: APPEALS (Rule 122-125) o!"#$%&: The S'%($)'%*'y'% shall exerise exlusive appellate !urisdition over "inal !ud#$ents, resolutions or orders o" the #&)$o%'l "#$'l !ou#"+ %hether in the exerise o" their o%n ori#inal !urisdition or o" their appellate !urisdition as provided in RA &2'(. (e.#. !'+&+ $%,ol,$%) -u*l$! o..$!&#+). An appeal erroneousl) ta*en to the +ourt o" Appeals +/'ll %o" *& "#'%+.&##&( to the appropriate ourt ,ut shall ,e ($+0$++&( ou"#$)/". FACTS: 1. State Auditors onduted an exa$ination o" the ash and aounts o" the '!!ou%"'*l& o..$!&#+ o" the -uniipalit) o" .ohol. 2. The) disovered a ash shorta#e o" P5/,021.1', unaounted ash ti*ets o"P2,&/5.01 and an unreorded he* o" P51,111 pa)a,le to .ala,a (a pu,li o""ier), or a total shorta#e o" P11',1&/.0'. 0. 3e$and letters %ere sent to .ala,a as*in# hi$ to explain the disrepan) in the aounts. '. 4nsatis"ied %ith .ala,a5s explanation, he %as har#ed %ith the ri$e o" -alversation o" Pu,li 6unds. 5. RTC: #uilt)7 /. .ala,a "iled his 8otie o" Appeal ,e"ore the +A 2. Then, he "iled his Appellant5s .rie". &. The 9S:, instead o" "ilin# an Appellee5s .rie", "iled a $otion pra)in# "or the ($+0$++'l o. "/& '--&'l .o# *&$%) $0-#o-&# +$%!& "/& S'%($)'%*'y'% /'+ &1!lu+$,& 2u#$+($!"$o% o,&# "/& '--&'l. (. CA: 3is$issed7 '. Sandi#an,a)an has exlusive appellate !urisdition over the ase. 11. SC: .ala,a ontends that '. +ourt o" Appeals erred in dis$issin# his appeal instead o" erti")in# the ase to the proper ourt. ISS3E: ;hether the appeal to +A %as proper HEL: 8o. <e should have "iled it to the Sandi#an,a)an 4pon .ala,a5s onvition ,) the trial ourt, his re$ed) should have ,een an appeal to the Sandi#an,a)an. Para#raph 0, Setion '() o" Repu,li At 8o. &2'( (RA &2'(), 1' %hih "urther de"ined the !urisdition o" the Sandi#an,a)an, reads= The Sandiganbayan shall exerise &1!lu+$,& '--&ll'"& 2u#$+($!"$o% over "inal !ud#$ents, resolutions or orders o" the re#ional trial ourts %hether in the exerise o" their o%n ori#inal !urisdition or o" their appellate !urisdition as herein provided. There is nothin# in said para#raph %hih an oneiva,l) !usti") the "ilin# o" .ala,a5s appeal ,e"ore the +ourt o" Appeals instead o" the Sandi#an,a)an. +learl), the +ourt o" Appeals is ,ere"t o" an) !urisdition to revie% the !ud#$ent .ala,a see*s to appeal. >n Melencion v. Sandiganbayan, %e ruled= An error in desi#natin# the appellate ourt is not "atal to the appeal. <o%ever, the orretion in desi#natin# the proper appellate ourt should ,e $ade %ithin the 15-da) period to appeal. 9ne $ade %ithin the said period, the desi#nation o" the orret appellate ourt $a) ,e allo%ed even i" the reords o" the ase are "or%arded to the +ourt o" Appeals. 9ther%ise, the seond para#raph o" Setion 2, Rule 51 o" the Rules o" ourt %ould appl). The seond para#raph o" Setion 2, Rule 51 o" the Rules o" +ourt reads= ?A% '--&'l &##o%&ou+ly "'4&% "o "/& Cou#" o. A--&'l+ +/'ll %o" *& "#'%+.&##&( "o "/& '--#o-#$'"& !ou#" *u" +/'ll *& ($+0$++&( ou"#$)/".? >n this ase, .ala,a sou#ht the orretion o" the error in "ilin# the appeal onl) a"ter the expiration o" the period to appeal. The trial ourt pro$ul#ated its 3eision on ( 3ee$,er 2112. .ala,a "iled his notie o" appeal on 1' @anuar) 2110. The +ourt o" Appeals issued the 3eision delarin# its la* o" !urisdition on 15 3ee$,er 211'. .ala,a tried to orret the error onl) on 22 @anuar) 2115, learl) ,e)ond the 15-da) period to appeal "ro$ the deision o" the trial ourt. There"ore, the +ourt o" Appeals did not o$$it an) error %hen it dis$issed .ala,a5s appeal ,eause o" la* o" !urisdition. S9 9R3ERE3.