Scribd
Upload
130 views2 pages

Quileste vs. People

The Supreme Court denied the petition of Virgilio Quileste who was convicted of malversation by a Regional Trial Court. While the Court of Appeals dismissed Quileste's appeal due to technical defects, the Supreme Court found that Quileste's remedy was to appeal directly to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, as the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases tried by the RTC involving malversation committed by a low-ranking public officer. By failing to appeal to the Sandiganbayan on time, Quileste lost his right to appeal and the RTC decision became final.

Uploaded by

Nicole Dagohoy Taytayan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
130 views2 pages

Quileste vs. People

The Supreme Court denied the petition of Virgilio Quileste who was convicted of malversation by a Regional Trial Court. While the Court of Appeals dismissed Quileste's appeal due to technical defects, the Supreme Court found that Quileste's remedy was to appeal directly to the Sandiganbayan, not the Court of Appeals, as the Sandiganbayan has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases tried by the RTC involving malversation committed by a low-ranking public officer. By failing to appeal to the Sandiganbayan on time, Quileste lost his right to appeal and the RTC decision became final.

Uploaded by

Nicole Dagohoy Taytayan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VIRGILIO V.

QUILESTE, Petitioner, Revised Penal Code and appreciating in his favor


vs. the mitigating circumstance of reimbursement of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. funds misappropriated, being analogous to
voluntary surrender hereby sentences the
RESOLUTION accused Virgilio V. Quileste to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS
NACHURA, J.: and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN
(14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under DAY, as maximum, both of Reclusion Temporal; to
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court s u ff e r t h e p e n a l t y o f p e r p e t u a l s p e c i a l
of Appeals (CA) Resolution2 dated June 8, 2007, disqualification; and to pay the costs.
dismissing the appeal of petitioner Virgilio
Quileste (Quileste) and the Resolution3 dated No fine is hereby adjudge (sic) in view of the
September 21, 2007 denying his Motion for payment or reimbursement by the accused of the
Reconsideration. shortage in the amount of ₱265,606.66.
SO ORDERED.6
The antecedents follow –
Quileste was charged with Malversation in an Aggrieved, Quileste appealed to the CA.
Information filed by the Office of the Ombudsman- However, in its Resolution dated June 8, 2007,
Mindanao which reads – the CA dismissed outright the appeal because
Quileste failed to furnish the Office of the Solicitor
That on or about 25 June 2002, or sometime prior General (OSG) a copy of his Motion for Extension
or subsequent thereto, in Dapa, Surigao del to File Appellant’s Brief and his Appellant’s Brief in
Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of violation of Section 3, Rule 1247 of the Rules of
this Honorable Court, above-named accused Court.
Virgilio V. Quileste, a low-ranking public officer,
being then a Revenue Collection Officer II of the Quileste moved to reconsider the June 8, 2007
Bureau of Internal Revenue, upon examination of Resolution. The motion was denied by the CA in
the cash and accounts from the accountable its Resolution dated September 21, 2007 on the
forms, and by reason of his office is accountable finding that, despite the allegation that a copy of
for said public funds under his control and the motion was served upon the OSG via
custody, did then and there fail to produce and to registered mail, the registry receipt was not
have fully forthcoming upon official demand a attached to the motion, in violation of Sections 58
cash shortage in the total amount of TWO and 139 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND SIX Furthermore, it appeared that the affidavit of
HUNDRED SIX PESOS & 26/100 (₱265,606.26), service attached to the motion to rectify the defect
which amount he willfully, unlawfully and in the appellant’s brief showed that the same was
feloniously took and misappropriated for his own filed via registered mail and the registry receipt
personal use and benefit to the damage and was not attached to the said affidavit. Neither was
prejudice of the Government and to public there an explanation why registered mail was
interest. resorted to in the service of the appellant’s brief
upon the OSG, also in violation of Sections 1110
Contrary to Law.4 and 13 of the same Rule.

The case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2354, Hence, this petition anchored on the sole issue
was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), that his appeal was dismissed merely on a
Branch 31, Dapa, Surigao del Norte. During the technicality for failure to furnish a copy of his brief
arraignment, he pleaded "Not Guilty." to the OSG despite a showing of substantial
compliance with the requirement. According to
After pre-trial and trial, the RTC found Quileste Quileste, the CA dwelt on technicalities without
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of considering the merit of his appeal questioning
Malversation.1avvphi1 The dispositive portion of the failure of the prosecution to present in
the Decision5 dated June 13, 2006 reads – evidence the cash book, which was the basis of
the finding of shortage against him, and other
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused VIRGILIO documentary evidence relevant to the audit
V. QUILESTE, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt conducted on him as an accountable officer.
as principal of the crime of MALVERSATION as
defined and penalized under Article 217 of the The petition necessarily fails.
It may be recalled that this case involves technical grounds, the period within which to
malversation of public funds, punishable under appeal to the proper court – the Sandiganbayan –
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, committed lapsed. Thus, Quileste lost his right to appeal.
by a low-ranking public officer (with salary grade Consequently, he cannot come before this Court
below SG 27). Thus the case was correctly filed to question the dismissal of his appeal, the RTC
with, and tried by, the RTC, the court that has Decision having become final and executory upon
exclusive original jurisdiction over the case. Upon the expiration of the period to appeal.
Quileste’s conviction by the RTC, his remedy
should have been an appeal to the In this light, it would be pointless to further
Sandiganbayan, pursuant to Presidential Decree discuss the merits of this case.
No. (PD) No. 1606,11 as amended by Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249, WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs
specifically Section 4 thereof, viz.: against petitioner.

Section 4. Jurisdiction. – x x x

In cases where none of the accused are


occupying positions corresponding to Salary
Grade "27" or higher, as prescribed in the said
Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP
officers mentioned above, exclusive original
jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper
regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial
court, as the case may be, pursuant to their
respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

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.12
This is complemented by the Revised Internal
Rules of the Sandiganbayan, Part III, Rule XI,
Section 1, which reads –

Section 1. Ordinary Appeal. – 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 Rule 122 and 124 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, as the case
may be.

We reiterate that the right to appeal is neither a


natural right nor a part of due process, it being
merely a statutory privilege which may be
exercised only in the manner provided for by
law.13 In this case, Quileste should have
appealed the RTC Decision of conviction to the
Sandiganbayan within 15 days from promulgation
of the judgment or from notice of the final order
appealed from.14 By lodging his appeal with the
CA which, in turn, erred in taking cognizance of
the same, although it dismissed the appeal on

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy