G.R. No. 175074 - Torres vs. People

On November 15, 1994, petitioner Jesus U. Torres, then Principal of Viga Rural Development High School, was charged with malversation of public funds before RTC Branch 42, Virac, Catanduanes.
The Information alleged that on April 27, 1994, petitioner encashed three PNB checks totaling ₱196,654.54 representing school employees’ salaries and allowances, then misappropriated the proceeds to his personal use.

Edmundo Lazado, school collection officer, prepared and endorsed three checks dated April 26, 1994.
Petitioner and a co-signatory encashed the checks on April 27, 1994 but did not deliver the funds to Lazado for distribution.

Petitioner admitted encashment but claimed he immediately flew to Manila for medical treatment due to chest pain.
He alleged armed men robbed him of the proceeds on April 29, 1994 and that he reported the incident to the police.

On August 31, 2005, the RTC found all elements of malversation proven beyond reasonable doubt and convicted petitioner under Article 217, RPC.
Sentenced to reclusion temporal (12 years and 1 day to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day), perpetual special disqualification, fine of ₱196,654.54, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

On September 8, 2005, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) instead of Sandiganbayan.
On February 10, 2006, he filed a Manifestation and Motion acknowledging the wrong forum and praying for referral to the Sandiganbayan.
The Office of the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 6, 2006, the CA dismissed the appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50, Rules of Court; petition for reconsideration was denied on October 17, 2006.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal outright instead of certifying the case to the Sandiganbayan.
Whether petitioner’s misdesignation of appellate court, corrected beyond the 15-day appeal period, warranted outright dismissal or referral.
Whether petitioner, as school principal, was an accountable public officer liable for malversation.
Whether conviction for malversation by negligence can stand despite an Information alleging willful misappropriation.