Sideño vs. People of the Philippines

The Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of Regional Trial Courts in cases involving public officers with a salary grade below 27, and an appeal erroneously filed in the Court of Appeals may be reinstated before the Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice where the notice of appeal was seasonably filed, the error was not dilatory, and the accused's liberty and the merits of the conviction and penalty require review; the straight penalty imposed must also conform to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Sideño was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 205, Zone 18, District II, Manila, a low-ranking public officer with a salary grade below 27. Aljon Trading, owned and operated by Allan Garcia, was engaged in supplying office, electrical, and paint materials to barangays. Barangay 205 undertook procurement projects for electrical and educational supplies, and the dispute concerned Sideño's alleged request and receipt of commissions from Aljon Trading in connection with those projects. The case is governed by Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, which penalizes a public officer who requests or receives a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit in connection with a government contract or transaction in which the officer has the right to intervene, and by the jurisdictional provisions of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, which allocate appellate jurisdiction over RTC judgments involving public officers below Salary Grade 27 to the Sandiganbayan.

Sideño was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay 205, Zone 18, District II, Manila. Aljon Trading, a business enterprise owned and operated by Allan Garcia, supplied office, electrical, and paint materials to barangays. Barangay 205 undertook a project for the procurement of electrical and educational supplies, and Sideño issued a Purchase Request. Barangay Treasurer Jaime Garcia issued an Invitation to Bid, and the project was bid out. A document denominated Abstract of Bid/Canvass and Award, recommending that the project be given to Aljon Trading, was signed and approved by Sideño and seven barangay kagawad. On March 8, 2010, Allan Garcia received Purchase Order No. 205-10-03, approved by Jaime Garcia and noted by Sideño, for the procurement and delivery of the subject items to Barangay 205. Allan Garcia delivered the items, which were received by Sideño and Jaime Garcia as indicated in the Acceptance and Inspection Report signed by both. A Confirmation Report was prepared and signed by Sideño, confirming delivery. Later, a disbursement voucher signed by Sideño was issued to Aljon Trading. The documents were submitted to Atty. Analyn Marcelo-Buan, Director of the Manila Barangay Bureau, who issued a 1st Indorsement dated March 24, 2010, forwarding the disbursement voucher to the City Accountant of Manila. A check was drawn payable to Aljon Trading and handed to Sideño as Barangay Chairman.

According to the prosecution, Allan Garcia testified that even before the processing and approval of the disbursement voucher and the issuance of the corresponding check, Sideño directly requested and demanded from him a percentage share of 25% of the project cost. Because he knew that Sideño was the approving official of the disbursement voucher and one of the signatories of the check, the other being Jaime Garcia, and because he needed to collect the payment, Allan Garcia was forced to accede to the request. On March 25, 2010, he gave Sideño P31,000.00 as the latter's share or commission on the sale transaction and made him sign an acknowledgement receipt. In exchange, Sideño handed to him the check payment.

Allan Garcia further testified that sometime in February 2011, Sideño intimated that Barangay 205 would undertake another project for the purchase of various supplies and materials and promised or assured him that the project would be awarded to Aljon Trading. As consideration, Sideño requested a share or commission. Considering that Sideño was the approving official of the next project, Allan Garcia was again forced to shell out P20,000.00 and P30,000.00 and gave the amounts to Sideño by way of commission, as evidenced by acknowledgement receipts dated February 4, 2011 and June 28, 2011, respectively, signed by Sideño. Despite Sideño's receipt of the amounts, no project was given to Aljon Trading. Sideño's practice of asking for a commission was repeated, still in the guise of an assured contract for the next barangay project. It was on this last attempt that Allan Garcia decided to file a complaint against Sideño for bribery, violation of Section 3(b) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019, grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Sideño interposed the defense of denial, contending that he never requested any money by way of commission nor asked any favor from Allan Garcia. He alleged that Allan Garcia falsely accused him of demanding a commission just to harass him. Sideño claimed that he did not sign the three acknowledgement receipts presented by the prosecution, although he admitted that those signatures resembled his own. He averred that Aljon Trading was a blacklisted supplier in the Manila City Hall and that Barangay Chairman Saturnino Grutas of Barangay 101, Zone 8, District I, Manila filed a complaint against Allan Garcia for falsification of public documents and unauthorized withdrawal of funds. As to the charges in Criminal Case Nos. 13-299982 and 13-299983, Sideño stressed that it was impossible for him to have received any share or commission from Allan Garcia for the year 2011 since Barangay 205 had no projects during the first quarter of that year. During cross-examination, Sideño alleged that Allan Garcia filed a complaint against him before the Ombudsman. Sideño submitted a counter-affidavit denying the accusation of requesting and receiving from Allan Garcia the total amount of P81,000.00. He asserted that Allan Garcia forged his signature on the three acknowledgement receipts and explained that he did not raise this defense before the Ombudsman because he discovered the forgery much later. Atty. Marcelo-Buan confirmed that Barangay Chairman Grutas filed a complaint against Aljon Trading or Allan Garcia regarding a barangay project to which she was tasked to investigate. She averred that she interviewed Allan Garcia when he applied for accreditation, and the documents were forwarded to the City Council for accreditation. The defense rested its case and filed its formal offer of evidence, but the RTC denied the admission of the defense's documentary evidence because they were mere photocopies.

The RTC found the prosecution able to establish all the elements of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected Sideño's defense of denial as self-serving and unsupported by any plausible proof. It ruled that Sideño requested and received from Allan Garcia the amounts of P31,000.00, P20,000.00, and P30,000.00 as his share on the barangay projects, as proved by the acknowledgement receipts adduced by the prosecution. The RTC observed an uncanny similarity in the lines and strokes between the signatures on the three acknowledgement receipts over the printed name "P/B ROLANDO SIDENO" and Sideño's signatures appearing on the barangay documents, such as to convince any person that those signatures were affixed by the same person. The trial court also held that the documentary evidence sufficiently showed that there was a contract between Aljon Trading, as represented by Allan Garcia, and Barangay 205, to which Sideño had the right to intervene as Chairman of the barangay.

• Erroneous Filing and Fault of Counsel: Petitioner insisted that he had nothing to do with the erroneous filing of the appeal to the Court of Appeals and decried the inadvertence of his counsel. He argued that he should not be faulted for the erroneous filing because the duty to refer the notice of appeal and forward the records to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan, belonged to the Regional Trial Court.
• Proper Forum and Rank of Accused: Petitioner faulted the RTC for not taking the appeal before the proper forum, contending that it is incumbent upon the court of origin to determine the proper court where the appeal should be lodged, taking into consideration the nature of the crime committed and the rank or position of the accused public official.
• Due Course by the Sandiganbayan: Petitioner posited that the appeal must be given due course by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the Court of Appeals Resolution issued on September 28, 2017, which had become final and executory, and prayed that his Appellant's Brief be referred to the Sandiganbayan in the interest of justice and equity.

• Finality and Immutability of RTC Judgment: Respondent People countered that Sideño had already lost his right to appeal by the time the Court of Appeals deemed it proper to transfer the records to the Sandiganbayan in the interest of substantial justice. Respondent maintained that Sideño's failure to perfect the appeal within fifteen days from promulgation or notice of the RTC Decision caused the decision to become final, precluding the Sandiganbayan from acquiring jurisdiction to review it, and that a final decision is immutable and unalterable.
• Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The Ombudsman and the Office of the Solicitor General argued that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the Regional Trial Court under Section 4(c), paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 8249 and Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606. The OSG sought outright dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing Engr. Abbot vs. Judge Mapayo and Magno vs. People, et al.
• Representation by the Ombudsman: The OSG moved that the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, should represent the People in the proceedings before the Supreme Court because the challenged resolutions were issued by the Sandiganbayan, and moved that the OSG be excused from participating. The Ombudsman sought a copy of the petition and an extension to submit its Comment.

• Due Course by the Sandiganbayan: Whether the appeal of petitioner must be given due course by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the Court of Appeals Resolution issued on September 28, 2017, which has become final and executory.
• Proper Appellate Forum: Whether Sideño's appeal from the RTC conviction for violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 should have been filed with the Sandiganbayan rather than the Court of Appeals.
• Imposable Penalty: Whether the straight penalty of eight years and one day imposed by the RTC for each count of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 is in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law and Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019.

• Due Course by the Sandiganbayan: Yes. The Sandiganbayan was directed to reinstate Sideño's appeal. Although an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals is ordinarily dismissed outright under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, the Court relaxed the rules in the interest of substantial justice because the notice of appeal was seasonably filed, the error was not dilatory, and Sideño's liberty and the merits of the conviction and penalty required review.
• Proper Appellate Forum: Yes. Sideño, a low-ranking public officer with a salary grade below 27, should have appealed the RTC judgment of conviction to the Sandiganbayan under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, and Section 1, Rule XII, Part III of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
• Imposable Penalty: No. The straight penalty of eight years and one day for each count is not in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019, the penalty is imprisonment of not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, and the indeterminate sentence should have a minimum not less than six years and one month and a maximum not exceeding fifteen years.

• Due Course by the Sandiganbayan: The Court recognized the general rule under Section 2, Rule 50 that an appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. It nevertheless held that the peculiar circumstances constrained relaxation and suspension of the rules to give Sideño a chance to seek relief from the Sandiganbayan, because the Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever equity and substantial justice require it. The factors for suspension were present: (1) special or compelling circumstances; (2) the merits of the case; (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension; (4) no showing that the review sought was merely frivolous and dilatory; and (5) the other party would not be unjustly prejudiced. The notice of appeal was seasonably filed: the RTC Decision was promulgated on June 29, 2016, and Sideño filed his notice of appeal on July 12, 2016, or thirteen days later, although he designated the wrong forum. The error of counsel should not be taken against Sideño because it would be unjust for him to lose his liberty simply because his counsel blundered, and the wrongful designation did not appear to be a dilatory tactic. An error in indicating in the notice of appeal the court to which the appeal is interposed is not fatal, and the designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal. Sideño should not be prejudiced by the erroneous transmission of the records to the Court of Appeals; the trial court was duty-bound to forward the records to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan, and the RTC judge should have known the law and rules. The Court deemed it wise that the criminal cases, particularly Criminal Case Nos. 13-299982 and 13-299983, be reviewed on the merits by the proper tribunal in the interest of substantial justice. To convict under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, the prosecution must prove all the elements beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit; (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; and (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene. A careful re-examination and scrutiny of the evidence for the State by an appellate court are essential because conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's case and not on the weakness of the defense. Where liberty is at stake, a window for redress should be opened, especially where the accused is prejudiced by the mistake or error of his counsel or of the lower court, and the deprivation of liberty or property should receive the liberal application of the Rules of Court to attain justice and fairness.
• Proper Appellate Forum: The Court quoted Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, which provides that where none of the accused occupy positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, while the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of Regional Trial Courts. This is complemented by Section 1, Rule XII, Part III of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, which provides that appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by ordinary appeal under Rules 41 and 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or Rules 122 and 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Since Sideño was a low-ranking public officer with a salary grade below 27, his remedy upon conviction should have been an appeal to the Sandiganbayan. There was nothing in the provisions that could justify filing the appeal before the Court of Appeals. The appeal was therefore erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals because the case properly fell within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
• Imposable Penalty: The Court observed that the straight penalty of eight years and one day imposed by the RTC for each count was not in accordance with Section 1 of Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225, or the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Under that law, if the offense is punished by a law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum of which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the Revised Penal Code and special laws where imprisonment exceeds one year. The need for specifying the minimum and maximum periods is to prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty and to enhance the economic usefulness of the accused, since he may be exempted from serving the entire sentence depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental, and moral record. Under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019, the penalty for violation of Section 3, among others, is imprisonment of not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable penalty should have a minimum term not less than six years and one month and a maximum term not exceeding fifteen years. The proper imposable penalty should be within the range of six years and one month to fifteen years.

• Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over RTC judgments involving low-ranking public officers — Under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, where none of the accused occupy positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction, but the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of the RTC. The Court applied this to hold that Sideño, a barangay chairman with salary grade below 27, should have appealed his R.A. No. 3019 conviction to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals.
• Erroneously taken appeal to the Court of Appeals — Section 2, Rule 50 of the 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. The Court recognized this as the general rule but treated it as subject to relaxation in exceptional circumstances.
• Relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice — The Court may suspend procedural rules where equity and substantial justice require. The relevant factors are: (1) special or compelling circumstances; (2) the merits of the case; (3) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension; (4) no showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (5) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced. All factors were present because the notice of appeal was seasonably filed, the wrong forum resulted from counsel's and the RTC's error, the appeal was not dilatory, and Sideño's liberty and the merits of his conviction and penalty were at stake.
• Error in designating the court in a notice of appeal — An error in indicating in the notice of appeal the court to which the appeal is interposed is not fatal to the appeal, and the designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal. The Court applied this to prevent Sideño from losing his appeal solely because the notice named the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan.
• Duty of the trial court to forward records to the proper appellate forum — The trial court is duty-bound to forward the records of the case to the proper forum. The Court held that Sideño should not be prejudiced by the RTC's error in transmitting the records to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, especially where his liberty was at stake.
• Mandatory application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law — The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory for offenses punishable by the Revised Penal Code and by special laws where imprisonment exceeds one year. For a special law, the maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. The Court applied this to hold that the RTC's straight penalty of eight years and one day for each count of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 was improper; the penalty should be indeterminate within the range of six years and one month to fifteen years under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019.
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence — In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt; moral certainty is required. The Court emphasized that Sideño's conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not the weakness of the defense, and that a thorough appellate review was necessary because his liberty was at stake.
• Elements of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 — The elements are: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) who requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit; (3) on behalf of the offender or any other person; (4) in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; and (5) in which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has the right to intervene. The Court stated that all elements must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt before conviction.

• "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided." — This passage, quoted from Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as amended, states the jurisdictional rule that made Sideño's appeal to the Court of Appeals erroneous and required it to be lodged with the Sandiganbayan.
• "Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides, among others, that an appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright. This has been the consistent holding of the Court." — This passage states the general rule that the Court recognized before relaxing it in Sideño's favor.
• "However, the peculiar circumstances of the case at bench constrain the Court to relax and suspend the rules to give Sideño a chance to seek relief from the SB. After all, the Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule whenever the purpose of equity and substantial justice requires it." — This is the ratio for the Court's suspension of procedural rules and its directive to reinstate the appeal.
• "The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory to both the Revised Penal Code and the special laws where imprisonment exceeds one (1) year." — This passage supports the Court's holding that the RTC's straight penalty for each count of violation of R.A. No. 3019 was improper.

• Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 227577, January 24, 2018, 853 SCRA 158 — Cited as the controlling precedent for the rule that the trial court is duty-bound to forward the records of the case to the proper forum and that the accused should not be prejudiced by the RTC judge's error in transmitting the records to the wrong court.
• Ulep vs. People, 597 Phil. 580 (2009) — Cited in Dizon vs. People for the same duty of the trial court to forward the records to the Sandiganbayan.
• Sanchez vs. Court of Appeals, 452 Phil. 665, 674 (2003) and Ginete vs. CA, 357 Phil. 36, 54 (1998) — Cited for the factors governing the suspension of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.
• Heirs of Pizarro, Sr. vs. Hon. Consolacion, 244 Phil. 187, 194 (1988) — Cited for the rule that an error in indicating in the notice of appeal the court to which the appeal is interposed is not fatal to the appeal.
• Torres vs. People, 672 Phil. 142, 149 (2011) — Cited for the rule that the designation of the wrong court does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice of appeal.
• Cadiao-Palacios vs. People, 601 Phil. 695, 703 (2009) — Cited for the elements of violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Romero vs. People, et al., 677 Phil. 151, 165-166 (2011) — Cited for the mandatory application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law to the Revised Penal Code and special laws where imprisonment exceeds one year.
• Luy vs. People, 797 Phil. 201 (2016) — Cited for the purpose of the minimum and maximum periods of the indeterminate sentence and the mandatory nature of the requirement.
• People vs. Bansil, 364 Phil. 22, 34 (1999) — Cited for the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and moral certainty in criminal cases.
• Engr. Abbot vs. Judge Mapayo, 390 Phil. 579 (2000) and Magno vs. People, et al., 662 Phil. 726 (2011) — Cited by the OSG in arguing that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over RTC judgments in anti-graft cases.
• Cariaga vs. People, 640 Phil. 272 (2010) — Cited by the Court of Appeals in ordering the transfer of the appealed case to the Sandiganbayan.

• Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019 — Defines the offense of a public officer requesting or receiving a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit in connection with a government contract or transaction in which the officer has the right to intervene. Sideño was indicted and convicted under this provision, and the Court reiterated its elements and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 10660 — Provides that where none of the accused occupy positions corresponding to Salary Grade 27 or higher, exclusive original jurisdiction is vested in the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, while the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions, or orders of Regional Trial Courts. Applied to hold that Sideño's appeal should have been taken to the Sandiganbayan.
• Section 1, Rule XII, Part III, Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan — Provides that appeal to the Sandiganbayan from a decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by ordinary appeal under Rules 41 and 44 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or Rules 122 and 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Applied to confirm the proper appellate procedure.
• 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. The Court recognized this general rule but relaxed it under the circumstances.
• Section 1, Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) — Requires an indeterminate sentence for offenses punished by the Revised Penal Code or other laws, with a maximum term not exceeding the maximum fixed by law and a minimum not less than the minimum prescribed. Applied to hold the RTC's straight penalty improper.
• Section 9, Republic Act No. 3019 — Sets the penalty for violation of Section 3, among others, at imprisonment of not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years. Applied to determine the proper range for the indeterminate sentence.
• Section 4(c), paragraph 3, Republic Act No. 8249 — Cited by the Ombudsman as basis for the Sandiganbayan's exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of the Regional Trial Court. The Court's analysis relied on the equivalent jurisdiction provision in P.D. No. 1606, as amended.

Caguioa, J., Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier, and Lopez, JJ., concur.