THIRD DIVISION
[G. R. No. 136974. August 27, 2002]
SALVADOR K. MOLL, petitioner petitioner,, vs. HON. MAMERO M. !"!AN, #$%s&'&(g )u'g%, R%g&o(*+ $&*+ ou$t o- **/o, A+*, !$*(/ 1 *(' A. NEO N. VLLAMN, #$os%/uto$ , **/o A+*, respondents. DESON AR#O, J .
% *s%
In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner seeks to set aside the Orders dated Decemer 1!, 1""# and $an%ar& ', 1""" of the Re(ional Trial )o%rt of Taaco, *la&, +ranch 1#, iss%ed in )riminal )ase No T./#' 0etitioner pra&s for the reinstatement of the Order dated Novemer 1., 1""# of the trial co%rt alloin( petitioner to ithdra his first notice of appeal to the )o%rt of *ppeals and (ivin( d%e co%rse to his second notice of appeal directed to the Sandi(ana&an [1]
% A(t%/%'%(t 5*/ts
The trial co%rt rendered a Decision on Octoer .#, 1""# in 0eople of the 0hilippines vs Salvador 2 3oll and 4smael 5epeda, findin( petitioner Salvador 2 3oll, former Vice 3a&or of 3alinao, *la&, (%ilt& of violatin( Section 6 7e8 of Rep%lic *ct No 6!1", as follos9 [.]
ACCORDINGLY, we find from the totality of the evidence, oral and documentary, documentary, unfolded before us that the GIL! of the accused, "alvador #$ %oll, for &IOLA!ION O' "(C$ ) *e+, RA )-., A" A%(ND(D, alle/ed and recited in the information, had been established by 0roof beyond reasonable doubt, for which reason he is hereby "(N!(NC(D to an im0risonment of si1 *2+ Years Years and one *-+ month, as minimum, to twelve *-3+ years as ma1imum, with 0er0etual dis4ualification from 0ublic office$ Accused, Y"%A(L 5(6(DA, whose GIL! has not been 0roved beyond reasonable doubt, is hereby AC7I!!(D$ Conse4uently, the 0ro0erty bailbond for his 0rovisional liberty is ordered cancelled$ "O ORD(R(D$
8)9
On Novemer 6, 1""#, petitioner, thro%(h co%nsel, filed a notice of appeal, statin( that he as appealin( the decision to the )o%rt of *ppeals 0etitioner f%rnished a cop& of his notice of appeal to respondent 0rosec%tor Niceto Villamin The trial co%rt (ave d%e co%rse to the appeal in an Order dated [:]
[']
Novemer :, 1""# Hoever, on Novemer 1., 1""#, the last da& of the re(lementar& period to appeal, petitioner filed a 3anifestation;3otion ithdrain( the notice of appeal dated Novemer 6, 1""# and filin( in its stead a second notice of appeal This second notice of appeal so%(ht to rin( the appeal to the Sandi(ana&an In its Order of Novemer 1., 1""#, the trial co%rt (ave d%e co%rse to petitioners 3anifestation;3otion, set aside its earlier Order, and ordered the entire record of the case forarded to the Sandi(ana&an for proper disposition [/]
[<]
[#]
On Novemer 1", 1""#, the respondent prosec%tor filed a 3otion for Reconsideration of the Order of Novemer 1., 1""# and a 3otion for Iss%ance of 3ittim%s pra&in( that the Order of Novemer 1., 1""# e set aside on three (ro%nds =irst, the acc%sed perfected his appeal %pon filin( the first notice of appeal, and therefore, the respondent co%rt, %nder Section ", R%le :1 of the R%les of )o%rt, lost >%risdiction over the case Second, the acc%sed failed to serve a cop& of his 3anifestation;3otion and second notice of appeal to the prosec%tion in violation of Section 67a8, R%le 1.. and Section :, R%le 16 of the R%les of )o%rt Third, the 3anifestation;3otion did not contain a notice of hearin( and proof of service to the prosec%tion The prosec%tion f%rther pra&ed that the trial co%rt declare the Decision of Octoer .#, 1""# final eca%se of the ithdraal of the first notice of appeal *lternativel&, the prosec%tion pra&ed that the record of the case e forarded to the )o%rt of *ppeals in accordance ith the trial co%rts earlier Order of Novemer :, 1""# ["]
On Decemer 1!, 1""#, the trial co%rt iss%ed an Order (ivin( d%e co%rse to the prosec%tions motion and reinstated its Order of Novemer :, 1""# (ivin( d%e co%rse to the appeal to the )o%rt of *ppeals ?pon petitioners motion for reconsideration, the trial co%rt on $an%ar& ', 1""" affirmed its Order of Decemer 1!, 1""# [1!]
[11]
On $an%ar& .!, 1""", petitioner filed this petition for certiorari %nder R%le /' of the R%les of )o%rt Respondent prosec%tor later filed his )omment, and the Office of the Solicitor @eneral filed a 3anifestation and 3otion in Aie% of )omment recommendin( that petitioners second notice of appeal to the Sandi(ana&an e (iven d%e co%rse
% ssu%s
The petitioner raises the folloin( iss%es9 1 BHCTHCR RCS0ONDCNT )O?RT CRRCD BHCN IT @R*NTCD D?C )O?RSC TO THC SC)OND NOTI)C O= *00C*A =IACD +4 THC *))?SCD ON NOVC3+CR 1., 1""# . BHCTHCR RCS0ONDCNT )O?RT CRRCD BHCN IT @*VC D?C )O?RSC TO THC 3OTION =OR RC)ONSIDCR*TION =IACD +4 THC 0ROSC)?TION ON NOVC3+CR 1", 1""# 6 BHCTHCR RCS0ONDCNT )O?RT *)TCD BITH @R*VC *+?SC O= DIS)RCTION *3O?NTIN@ TO A*)2 O= $?RISDI)TION BHCN IT ISS?CD ITS ORDCRS O= DC)C3+CR 1!, 1""# *ND $*N?*R4 ', 1"""
These iss%es can e red%ced into one central iss%e - hether the first notice of appeal is valid, renderin( the second notice of appeal %nnecessar&
% ou$ts Ru+&(g
The )o%rt (rants this petition The assailed Orders of the trial co%rt direct petitioner, over his vi(oro%s o>ections, to rin( his appeal to the )o%rt of *ppeals here the appeal is o%nd to e dismissed o%tri(ht for ein( filed in the ron( co%rt 0etitioner asserts that the trial co%rt, in directin( him to rin( his appeal to the ron( co%rt, acted ith (rave a%se of discretion amo%ntin( to lack of >%risdiction *t the time of the alle(ed commission of the offense, petitioner as the m%nicipal vice-ma&or of 3alinao, *la&, a position correspondin( to Salar& @rade .' p%rs%ant to Rep%lic *ct No <1/! ?nder Rep%lic *ct No #.:", the Sandi(ana&an had ecl%sive appellate >%risdiction over petitioners case, to it9 [1.]
"(C!ION :$ "ection : of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows; "ec$ :$
111 111 111 In cases where none of the accused are occu0yin/ 0ositions corres0ondin/ to "alary Grade >3?> or hi/her, as 0rescribed in the said Re0ublic Act No$ 2?@, or military and 6N6 officer mentioned above, e1clusive ori/inal =urisdiction thereof shall be vested in the 0ro0er re/ional trial court, metro0olitan trial court, munici0al trial court, and munici0al circuit trial court, as the case may be, 0ursuant to their res0ective =urisdictions as 0rovided in Batas 6ambansa Bl/$ -3., as amended$ !he "andi/anbayan shall e1ercise e1clusive a00ellate =urisdiction over final =ud/ments, resolutions or orders of re/ional trial courts whether in the e1ercise of their own ori/inal =urisdiction or of their a00ellate =urisdiction as herein 0rovided$ *(m0hasis su00lied+ 8-)9
Section 1 of 0residential Decree No 1#/1, hich amended 0residential Decree No 1/!/ and +atas 0amansa +l( 1." relative to the >%risdiction of the Sandi(ana&an, also provides9 [1:]
"ec$ -$ "ection : of 6residential Decree No$ -22 is hereby amended to read as follows; >"ec$ :$
*-+ On a00eal, from the final =ud/ments, resolutions or orders of the Re/ional !rial Courts in cases ori/inally decided by them in their res0ective territorial =urisdiction$ *3+ By 0etition for review, from the final =ud/ments, resolutions or orders of the Re/ional !rial Courts in the e1ercise of their a00ellate =urisdiction over cases ori/inally decided by the %etro0olitan !rial Courts, %unici0al !rial Courts and %unici0al Circuit !rial Courts, in their res0ective =urisdiction$ ?nder the la, the )o%rt of *ppeals is ereft of an& >%risdiction to revie the >%d(ment petitioner seeks to appeal *s correctl& oserved & the Office of the Solicitor @eneral, this ill have a fatal effect on the petitioners appeal, th%s9
hile res0ondent court /ave due course to 0etitioners first notice of a00eal to the Court of A00eals, the fact remains that said a00eal is liely to be dismissed by the Court of A00eals for lac of =urisdiction$!hus, the net effect of res0ondent courts assailed orders is the denial of 0etitioners ri/ht to a00eal$ 8-@9
0etitioners first notice of appeal, filed ell ithin the reE%isite fifteen-da& period and ith notice d%l& f%rnished to the prosec%tion, as valid The desi(nation of the ron( co%rt does not necessaril& affect the validit& of the notice of appeal The )o%rt has held that the r%le reE%irin( a part& to specif& the co%rt here the appeal is ein( taken is merel& director& *n error in desi(natin( the appellate co%rt is not fatal to the appeal [1/]
=%rther, petitioners 3anifestation;3otion and second notice of appeal, in s%stance, merel& so%(ht a correction of here to rin( the petitioners appeal The 3anifestation;3otion is not the ithdraal of appeal contemplated %nder Section 1. of R%le 1.. of the R%les of )o%rt, hich res%lts in the finalit& of the >%d(ment of the trial co%rt 0etitioners intent is clear - to appeal the trial co%rts decision 0etitioner had no intention to aandon his appeal and to serve the sentence imposed & the trial co%rt Once validl& perfected, the appeal, if not aandoned, contin%es ?pon perfection of the appeal, the trial co%rt loses >%risdiction over the case %nder appeal s%>ect to the last para(raph of Section ", R%le :1, to it9
"ec$ .$ 6erfection of a00ealE effect thereof$ A 0artys a00eal by notice of a00eal is deemed 0erfected as to him u0on the filin/ of the notice of a00eal in due time$ 111 In a00eals by notice of a00eal, the court loses =urisdiction over the case u0on the 0erfection of the a00eals filed in due time and the e10iration of the time to a00eal of the other 0arties$ 111 In either case, 0rior to the transmittal of the ori/inal record or the record on a00eal, the court may issue orders for the 0rotection and 0reservation of the ri/hts of the 0arties which do not involve any matter liti/ated by the a00eal, a00rove com0romises, 0ermit a00eals of indi/ent liti/ants, order e1ecution
0endin/ a00eal in accordance with "ection 3 of Rule )., and allow withdrawal of the a00eal$ *(m0hasis su00lied+ The ri(ht to appeal, hich petitioner availed of on time, is a ri(ht not liti(ated & the appeal The correction of the co%rt here petitioners appeal is to e taken merel& preserves petitioners ri(ht to an appeal he has alread& perfected ithin the re(lementar& period The trial co%rt retains >%risdiction to make s%ch correction efore act%al transmittal of the records to the proper appellate co%rt [1<]
It is the la, not the choice of the parties, hich determines >%risdiction The trial co%rt kne that the la (rants to the Sandi(ana&an ecl%sive appellate >%risdiction over petitioners case 0etitioner correctl& and timel& informed the trial co%rt that the Sandi(ana&an had ecl%sive >%risdiction over the appeal Despite the vi(oro%s o>ections of petitioner, the trial co%rt still directed the appeal to e taken to the )o%rt of *ppeals The trial co%rt also kne that the appeal, if ro%(ht to the ron( co%rt, o%ld for certain e dismissed o%tri(ht, effectivel& deprivin( petitioner of his ri(ht to appeal 3anifestl&, the trial co%rt acted ith (rave a%se of discretion amo%ntin( to lack of >%risdiction [1#]
Be emphasiFe, hoever, that the correction in desi(natin( the proper appellate co%rt sho%ld e made ithin the 1'-da& period to appeal Once made ithin the said period, the desi(nation of the correct appellate co%rt ma& e alloed even if the records of the case are forarded to the )o%rt of *ppeals Otherise, Section ., R%le '! of the R%les of )o%rt o%ld appl&, the relevant portion of hich states9
"ec$ 3$ Dismissal of im0ro0er a00eal to the Court of A00eals$ 111 An a00eal erroneously taen to the Court of A00eals shall not be transferred to the a00ro0riate court but shall be dismissed outri/ht$ In this case, the records had not &et een forarded to the )o%rt of *ppeals 3oreover, petitioner corrected his notice of appeal efore the lapse of the fifteen-da& period to file an appeal 0etitioners fail%re to serve the prosec%tion a cop& of the correction, contained in the second notice of appeal, did not invalidate hat as alread& a perfected appeal %nder the first notice of appeal [1"]
+esides, fail%re of service to the adverse part& or prosec%tion in a criminal proceedin( is not ala&s fatal Section ', R%le 1.. of the R%les of )o%rt provides that9
"ec$ @$ Notice waived$ !he a00ellee may waive his ri/ht to a notice that an a00eal has been taen$ !he a00ellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an a00eal notwithstandin/ failure to /ive such notice if the interests of =ustice so re4uire$ *(m0hasis su00lied+ 839
The Sandi(ana&an ma&, in its discretion and in the interest of >%stice, (ive d%e co%rse to petitioners appeal despite his fail%re to serve a cop& to the prosec%tion of the notice of appealIt ma& also allo the appeal in the eercise of its eE%it& >%risdiction *s e r%led in Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals 9 [.1]
111 when noncom0liance with the Rules of Court is not intended for delay or does not 0re=udice the adverse 0arty, the dismissal of an a00eal on a mere technicality may be stayed and the court may, at its sound discretion, e1ercise its e4uity =urisdiction$
*s for the other lapses in proced%re attri%ted & the prosec%tion to the petitioner, the same are not errors in la eca%se there is no reE%irement to set for hearin( the approval of a notice of appeal HERE5ORE, the petition is @R*NTCD The trial co%rts Orders of Decemer 1!, 1""# and $an%ar& ', 1""" are SCT *SIDC, and the Order of Novemer 1., 1""# (ivin( d%e co%rse to the petitioners appeal to the Sandi(ana&an is RCINST*TCD SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), and Panganiban, JJ., conc%r Sandoval-utierre!, J., on leave
[1]
?nder R%le /' of the R%les of )o%rt
[.]
0enned & respondent $%d(e 3amerto 3 +%an
[6]
"ollo, pa(es '< and '#
[:]
#bid., pa(e 1:
[']
#bid., pa(e 1'
[/]
#bid., pa(e 1<
[<]
#bid., pa(e 1#
[#]
#bid., pa(e 1"
["]
#bid., pa(e .!
[1!]
#bid., pa(e 6.
[11]
#bid., pa(e ::
[1.]
Section ::' 78 of the Aocal @overnment )ode of 1""1 7R* No <1/!8 provides9
Section ::' 0oers, D%ties and )ompensation 78 The vice-ma&or shall receive a monthl& compensation correspondin( to Salar& @rade tent& five 7.'8 as prescried %nder R* No /<'# and the implementin( (%idelines iss%ed p%rs%ant thereto Rep%lic *ct No #.:" 71""<8 Cntitled *n *ct =%rther Definin( The $%risdiction Of The Sandi(ana&an, *mendin( =or The 0%rpose 0residential Decree No 1/!/, *s *mended, 0rovidin( =%nds Therefor, *nd =or Other 0%rposesG [16]
[1:]
0residential Decree No 1#/1 71"#68 "ollo, pa(e ".
[1']
0eople v Torres, @R No 16!//1 7$%ne .<, .!!18 citin( Valerio v Tan, "< 0hil ''# 71"''8 Heirs of 0iFarro, Sr v )onsolacion, 1/1 S)R* 1#< 71"##8 [1/]
[1<]
Cmroider& and *pparel )ontrol and Inspection +oard v )loriel, .! S)R* '1< 71"/<8 0an(ilinan v )o%rt of *ppeals, 6.1 S)R* '1 71"""8
[1#]
[1"]
R%le 1.., Section / of the R%les of )o%rt The same provision appears veratim in the 1"#' and .!!! R%les on )riminal 0roced%re
[.!]
[.1]
)o>%an(co v )o%rt of *ppeals, 6!" S)R* /!. 71"""8
