Melencion vs. Sandiganbayan

An appeal from a final judgment or order of a regional trial court in a case falling within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction must be taken to the Sandiganbayan; an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. The Court of Appeals therefore committed grave error in transferring Melencion's appeal to the Sandiganbayan, and the Sandiganbayan correctly returned the records to the Court of Appeals.

Melencion served as School Superintendent of the Cebu State College of Science and Technology-College of Fisheries, Moalboal, Cebu. The complainants were secondary school teachers and a librarian of the same government educational institution. Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 penalizes a public officer who, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, causes undue injury to any party or gives any party unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. Republic Act No. 8249, which further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, took effect in 1997 and provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases within its jurisdiction.

Melencion was the School Superintendent of the Cebu State College of Science and Technology-College of Fisheries, Moalboal Campus, Cebu. The complainants were 13 secondary school teachers and the librarian of the same institution: Olympia Geraldino, Visitacion Gocotano, Elvira Joyohoy, Hideliza Tabanao, Angelito Pableo, Frisco Canumay, Lucia Gako, Vivencia Evelyn Lauron, Zenaida Mantos, Emma T. Pableo, Zosimo Villalino, Primitivo Kimeno, Melecisima de los Angeles, and Cirila Sabanal. On 16 August 1989, they filed a complaint against Melencion before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas. In a resolution dated 9 July 1990, the Graft Investigation Officers recommended that an information for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act be filed against Melencion.

In an Information dated 24 November 1995, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, upon the direction of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, charged Melencion before Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Barili, Cebu. The Information alleged that on or about the period from 1 January 1985 to July 1989 and/or sometime thereafter, in Moalboal, Cebu, Melencion, a public officer and then School Superintendent, while in the discharge of his official or administrative functions, through evident bad faith or manifest partiality, willfully, unlawfully, and criminally caused undue injury to the named teachers and librarian. Specifically, he allegedly deliberately withheld and failed to inform or furnish them copies of their respective appointments duly approved by College President Dr. Atanacio Elma effective 1 January 1985, which reflected their promotions to salary grade 58 or a P13,824.00 annual salary fixed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 866, thereby making them believe that their salary was still that corresponding to grade 56. He also allegedly failed to implement the actual salary commensurate to salary range 58 and/or withheld salary differentials from 1 January 1985 to July 1989 in the following amounts: Hideliza Tabanao, Elvira Joyohoy, Angelito Pableo, Lucia Gako, Zosimo Villalino, Cirila Sabanal, Vivencia Evelyn Lauron, Zenaida Mantos, Olympia Geraldino, and Emma Pableo, P6,978.00 each, more or less, or a total of P69,780.00; Primitivo Jimeno, P4,336.00, more or less; Visitacion Gocotano, P10,424.00; and Frisco Canumay, P6,834.00, for a total of P91,374.00. The Information stated that this caused damage and prejudice to the complainant-teachers in the sum of P91,374.00.

During his arraignment on 17 January 1996, Melencion entered a plea of not guilty. Trial followed. On 27 February 1996, Melencion filed a Motion for Inhibition of Presiding Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte because Mrs. Emma T. Pableo, one of the complainants, was Judge Suerte's niece; Mrs. Pableo's mother was a first-degree cousin of Judge Suerte. The next day, Judge Suerte stated in open court that "the motion is admitted by the Court to have been filed but not exactly recognized, this Court, for this moment, would just like to study the motion for inhibition and will issue the order within a short period of time..." No ruling on the motion was issued before the trial proceeded.

On 8 July 1998, Judge Suerte found Melencion guilty of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The trial court held that the elements of the crime were sufficiently proved by the prosecution with clear and convincing evidence. It imposed imprisonment ranging from 6 years and one month as minimum to 10 years and one day as maximum, perpetual disqualification from public office, and indemnification of the complainants in the amounts stated in the Information, totaling P91,374.00, plus 12% legal interest per annum from January 1985 to July 1989 or P49,341.96. Melencion filed his Notice of Appeal on the same day, indicating that he would file an appeal before the Court of Appeals. He later filed his Appellant's Brief before the Court of Appeals on 1 April 1999, where the case was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 22519. The Court of Appeals eventually declared that it had no jurisdiction and transferred the records to the Sandiganbayan; the Sandiganbayan returned the records to the Court of Appeals. These events precipitated the present petition.

• Validity of Return of Records / Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the return of the records of CA-G.R. No. CR 22519 to the Court of Appeals was not valid and justifiable, and that if it was not, the Supreme Court should have the case resolved nonetheless by the Sandiganbayan.
• Due Process / Inhibition: Petitioner maintained that he was deprived of his right to due process when the trial judge ignored his Motion for Inhibition and proceeded with the trial and rendered a judgment tainted by bias and partiality, a matter that was within the competence of the Court of Appeals to pass upon.

• Erroneous Appeal / Return of Records: Respondent Sandiganbayan maintained, in its 2 October 2001 Minute Resolution, that the records should be returned to the Court of Appeals because an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright under Rule 50, Section 2 and Supreme Court Circular 2-90.

• Validity of Return of Records / Proper Appellate Court: Whether the Sandiganbayan's return of the records of CA-G.R. No. CR 22519 to the Court of Appeals is valid and justifiable, and if not, whether the Supreme Court may nonetheless have the case resolved by the Sandiganbayan.
• Due Process / Inhibition: Whether Melencion was deprived of his right to due process when the trial judge ignored his Motion for Inhibition and proceeded with the trial and rendered judgment, and whether that matter was within the competence of the Court of Appeals to pass upon.

• Validity of Return of Records / Proper Appellate Court: Yes. The return of the records was valid and justifiable because Melencion erroneously filed his appeal before the Court of Appeals; under Republic Act No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of regional trial courts in cases within its jurisdiction, and an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall be dismissed outright under Rule 50, Section 2, not transferred.
• Due Process / Inhibition: Dismissed. The due process claim based on the non-issuance of a ruling on the motion for inhibition was dismissed because of Melencion's erroneous filing; the Court did not reach the merits of the alleged bias or partiality.

• Validity of Return of Records / Proper Appellate Court: The Sandiganbayan's return of the records was justified by Melencion's earlier erroneous filing of his appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Sandiganbayan merely accorded the Court of Appeals the courtesy due to a co-equal judicial body, giving it the opportunity to rectify its error in transferring the case instead of dismissing it outright. The Court of Appeals committed grave error in transferring the case to the Sandiganbayan. Republic Act No. 8249 took effect in 1997, and Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) thereof provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as provided. Nothing in that paragraph justified filing the appeal before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' hesitance to dismiss compounded the erroneous filing; mere invocation of substantial justice does not suffice to cover up a fatal error. Section 18, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure applies Rules 46 to 56, including Rule 50, to criminal cases insofar as applicable and not inconsistent. Under Moll vs. Hon. Buban, the rule requiring a party to specify the court where the appeal is being taken is merely directory, and an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal, but the correction must be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Here, the trial court promulgated its decision on 8 July 1998 and Melencion filed his notice of appeal the same day; the Court of Appeals declared its lack of jurisdiction only on 30 May 2001, clearly beyond the 15-day period. Thus, the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 50 applied: an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.
• Due Process / Inhibition: The due process issue based on the non-issuance of a ruling on Melencion's motion for inhibition was dismissed because of his erroneous filing. The Court did not reach the merits of the alleged bias or partiality; the erroneous appeal precluded relief on that claim in this petition.

• Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan under RA 8249 — Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of Republic Act No. 8249 vests the Sandiganbayan with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts in cases within its jurisdiction, whether the regional trial court acted in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. In this case, because Melencion was convicted under Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, his appeal should have been filed with the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals.
• Erroneous appeal to the wrong court; dismissal outright — Under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. The Court applied this rule to hold that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed Melencion's appeal instead of transferring it to the Sandiganbayan, and that the Sandiganbayan correctly returned the records.
• Directory designation of appellate court subject to 15-day correction — The requirement for a party to specify the court where the appeal is being taken is merely directory, and an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal to the appeal. However, the correction in designating the proper appellate court must be made within the 15-day period to appeal; once made within that period, the designation of the correct appellate court may be allowed even if the records have been forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed outright. The Court found that the correction in this case came only in 2001, beyond the 15-day period from the 8 July 1998 promulgation.
• Substantial justice does not cure fatal procedural error — Mere invocation of substantial justice as a ground for relaxation of the rules does not suffice to cover up a fatal error. The Court used this principle to reject Melencion's attempt to excuse his erroneous filing.
• Due process claim dismissed due to erroneous filing — A due process claim based on the trial judge's failure to rule on a motion for inhibition may be dismissed when the appeal raising it was erroneously filed. The Court dismissed the claim because of Melencion's erroneous filing, without reaching the merits.

• "The Sandiganbayan’s act of returning the records of the present case to the Court of Appeals can be justified by Melencion’s earlier erroneous filing of his appeal before the Court of Appeals." — This states the ratio for upholding the Sandiganbayan's return of the records and anchors the ruling on Melencion's own procedural error.
• "Paragraph 3, Section 4(c) of RA 8249 is clear. There is nothing in said paragraph which can conceivably justify the filing of Melencion’s appeal before the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan." — This articulates the controlling jurisdictional rule that the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the RTC judgment.
• "An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright." — This is the canonical formulation of the rule applied by the Court, taken from Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
• "Finally, the issue raised by Melencion’s allegation of deprivation of due process because of the non-issuance by Judge Suerte of a ruling on Melencion’s motion for inhibition should likewise be dismissed because of his erroneous filing." — This explains why the due process claim was not resolved on the merits.

• Moll vs. Hon. Buban, 436 Phil. 627 (2002) — Cited and distinguished. The Court acknowledged the ruling that the rule requiring a party to specify the court where the appeal is taken is merely directory and that an error in designating the appellate court is not fatal, but held that the correction must be made within the 15-day period to appeal; Melencion's correction came too late.
• Murillo vs. Consul, 183 SCRA XI, p. XVIII — Cited in the Sandiganbayan's minute resolution as authority for the rule that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred but dismissed outright.
• Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 51 — Cited in the Sandiganbayan's minute resolution as reiterating the same ruling.
• PNB/NIDC vs. Court of Appeals, China Banking Corporation, CA G.R. No. 128661, Aug. 8, 2000 — Cited in the Sandiganbayan's minute resolution as further reiterating the ruling on erroneous appeals.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — The provision under which Melencion was charged and convicted. It penalizes a public officer who, through evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence, causes undue injury to any party or gives any party unwarranted benefit, advantage, or preference. The Supreme Court's resolution did not re-examine the merits of the conviction but addressed the proper appellate court.
• Paragraph 3, Section 4(c), Republic Act No. 8249 — Provides that the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as provided. Applied to hold that Melencion's appeal should have been filed with the Sandiganbayan.
• Section 18, Rule 124, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure — Provides that the provisions of Rules 46 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of Appeals in original as well as appealed civil cases shall, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with Rule 124, be applied to criminal cases. Applied to make Rule 50 applicable to Melencion's criminal appeal.
• Section 2, Rule 50, Rules of Court — Provides that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. Applied to hold that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed Melencion's appeal instead of transferring it to the Sandiganbayan.
• Supreme Court Circular 2-90 dated March 9, 1990 — Provides that an appeal taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be dismissed. Cited in the Sandiganbayan's minute resolution as support for returning the records to the Court of Appeals.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Corona, Azcuna, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.