Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19776)
Conviction and Sentencing
Ulep was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as the minimum penalty up to 19 years of reclusion temporal as the maximum penalty. She was also ordered to pay a fine of P113,768, equivalent to the amount she was accused of misappropriating, which was to be paid to the Philippine Postal Corporation.
Notice of Appeal and Trial Court’s Order
Following her conviction, Ulep filed a notice of appeal in the RTC, indicating her intent to appeal the judgment based on the assertion that it was contrary to law and evidence. The RTC acknowledged her notice of appeal and ordered the case records, including all oral and documentary evidence, to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA) for further proceedings.
Court of Appeals’ Dismissal of Appeal
The CA dismissed Ulep’s appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction, asserting that malversation of public funds is classified under public office-related crimes. According to Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 8249, cases involving these crimes fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan when the accused occupy certain government positions, which do not pertain to those holding salaries of Grade 27 or higher. Given that Ulep’s salary grade was lower than Grade 27, the case should have been under the jurisdiction of the RTC, not the CA.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
In response to the dismissal, Ulep filed a motion for reconsideration. She argued that instead of dismissing her appeal, the appellate court should have ordered a transfer of the case records to the Sandiganbayan since the trial court had directed the records to be sent to the CA. Ulep contended that her failure to specify the proper court in her notice of appeal was merely an oversight.
Denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Review
Ulep subsequently filed a petition for review, which was denied by the Supreme Court due to her failure to demonstrate that the CA committed any reversible error. Thereafter, Ulep submitted a motion for reconsideration, reiterating her argument regarding the proper treatment of her appeal based on constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Resolution
The Supreme Court granted Ulep's motion for reconsideration, highlighting that it is not mandatory for an appellant to specify the court to which the appeal is directed. Citing the precedent in Heirs of Pizarro v. Consolacion, the Court noted that failing to indicate the correct court is not a fatal defect to th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-19776)
Case Background
- The case involves Gilda C. Ulep, a government employee serving as a money order teller at the Fort Bonifacio Post Office.
- Ulep was charged with malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 132.
- She was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum, to 19 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, along with a fine of P113,768 and an order to pay the Philippine Postal Corporation the same amount.
Notice of Appeal
- Ulep filed a notice of appeal against the judgment rendered by the RTC, stating that the judgment was contrary to law and evidence.
- The trial court acknowledged the notice of appeal and ordered the records to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals (CA) for further proceedings.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA dismissed Ulep’s appeal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, stating that malversation is categorized under public office-related crimes.
- According to PD 1606, as amended by RA 8249, the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials with a sal