Balaba Vs People (2009) PDF

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 169519 July 17, 2009
IRENORIO B. BALABA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent.
RESOLUTION
CARPIO, J.:
This petition for review1 assails the 15 December 2004 Decision2 and 24 August
2005 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27178. In its 15
December 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner Irenorio B.
Balaba’s (Balaba) appeal of the 9 December 2002 Decision4 of the Regional Trial
Court of Loay, Bohol, Branch 50 (trial court), finding him guilty of Malversation of
Public Funds. In its 24 August 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Balaba’s
motion for reconsideration.
On 18 and 19 October 1993, State Auditors Arlene Mandin and Loila Laga of the
Provincial Auditor’s Office conducted an examination of the cash and accounts of the
accountable officers of the Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol. The State Auditors
discovered a cash shortage of ₱56,321.04, unaccounted cash tickets of ₱7,865.30
and an unrecorded check of ₱50,000 payable to Balaba, or a total shortage of
₱114,186.34. Three demand letters were sent to Balaba asking him to explain the
discrepancy in the accounts. Unsatisfied with Balaba’s explanation, Graft
Investigation Officer I Miguel P. Ricamora recommended that an information for
Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, be filed against Balaba with the Sandiganbayan.5
In an Information6 dated 26 April 1995, the Office of the Special Prosecutor charged
Balaba with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds.7 The Information against
Balaba reads as follows:
1 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

That on or about October 19, 1993, in the Municipality of Guindulman, Bohol,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Guindulman, Bohol and accountable public officer
for the funds collected and received by virtue of his position, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misappropriate, embezzle and take away from said funds, the total
amount of ₱114,186.34, which he converted to his personal use and benefit, to the
damage and prejudice of the government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
During his arraignment on 17 May 1996, Balaba entered a plea of not guilty. Trial
soon followed.
On 9 December 2002, the trial court found Balaba guilty. The dispositive portion of
the 9 December 2002 Decision reads:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court resolves that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, pursuant to law, the Court
has no recourse but to sentence the accused, Irenorio B. Balaba, to an
indeterminate sentence of 10 YEARS AND ONE DAY as minimum, to 17 YEARS, 4
MONTHS AND ONE DAY of Reclusion Temporal as maximum. He shall suffer the
penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the
funds malversed which is ₱114,186.34.
SO ORDERED.9
On 14 January 2003, Balaba filed his Notice of Appeal, where he indicated that he
would file his appeal before the Court of Appeals.10 On 6 August 2003, Balaba filed
his Appellant’s Brief.11
The Office of the Solicitor General, instead of filing an Appellee’s Brief, filed a
Manifestation and Motion12 praying for the dismissal of the appeal for being
improper since the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal.

In its 15 December 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals dismissed Balaba’s appeal.
The Court of Appeals declared that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appeal
because the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case.
On 27 January 2005, Balaba filed a Motion for Reconsideration and asked that he be
allowed to pursue his appeal before the proper court, the Sandiganbayan.13 In its
24 August 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Balaba’s motion.
On 7 October 2005, Balaba filed his present petition before this Court where he
raised the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his appeal
instead of certifying the case to the proper court. Balaba claims that it was due to
inadvertence that the notice of appeal was filed before the Court of Appeals instead
of the Sandiganbayan. Balaba adds that his appeal was dismissed on purely
technical grounds. Balaba asks the Court to relax the rules to afford him an
opportunity to correct the error and fully ventilate his appeal on the merits.
The petition has no merit.
Upon Balaba’s conviction by the trial court, his remedy should have been an appeal
to the Sandiganbayan. Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 (RA
8249),14 which further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, reads:
The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise
of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
(Emphasis ours)
There is nothing in said paragraph which can conceivably justify the filing of Balaba’s
appeal before the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, the Court
of Appeals is bereft of any jurisdiction to review the judgment Balaba seeks to
appeal.
In Melencion v. Sandiganbayan,15 we ruled:
An error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the
correction in designating the proper appellate court should be made within the 15-

day period to appeal. Once made within the said period, the designation of the
correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records of the case are forwarded
to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of
the Rules of court would apply. The second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 of the
Rules of Court reads:
"An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the
appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright." (Emphasis ours)1avvphi1
In this case, Balaba sought the correction of the error in filing the appeal only after
the expiration of the period to appeal. The trial court promulgated its Decision on 9
December 2002. Balaba filed his notice of appeal on 14 January 2003. The Court of
Appeals issued the Decision declaring its lack of jurisdiction on 15 December 2004.
Balaba tried to correct the error only on 27 January 2005, clearly beyond the 15-day
period to appeal from the decision of the trial court. Therefore, the Court of Appeals
did not commit any error when it dismissed Balaba’s appeal because of lack of
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 15 December 2004 Decision

and 24 August 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27178.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Rollo, pp. 55-58. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap with Associate
Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Pampio A. Abarintos, concurring.
3 Id. at 64-65.
4 Id. at 24-36. Penned by Executive Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr.
5 Records, pp. 4-5. Graft Investigation Officer III Edgardo C. Labella recommended
the approval of the recommendation. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo C.
Mojica approved the recommendation.
6 Rollo, pp. 22-23.
7 The Information was originally filed with the Sandiganbayan but was subsequently
transferred to the trial court on 30 June 1995 upon the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 7975.
8 Rollo, p. 22.
9 Id. at 36.
10 Id. at 37.
11 Id. at 39-49.

12 Id. at 50-53.
13 CA rollo, pp. 111-113.
14 Entitled "An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction Of The Sandiganbayan,

Amending For The Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes." Approved on 5 February 1997.
15 G.R. No. 150684, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 345, 353.

Balaba Vs People (2009) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balaba Vs People (2009) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balaba Vs People (2009) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 169519 July 17, 2009

IRENORIO B. BALABA, Petitioner,

1 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

2 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

The petition has no merit.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final

In Melencion v. Sandiganbayan,15 we ruled:

3 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 15 December 2004 Decision

RENATO C. CORONA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

4 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

4 Id. at 24-36. Penned by Executive Judge Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr.

6 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

5 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

13 CA rollo, pp. 111-113.

14 Entitled "An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction Of The Sandiganbayan,

15 G.R. No. 150684, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 345, 353.

6 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

You might also like