FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234880. April 4, 2018.]
GAUDIOSO P. COSTELO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: CcSTHI
"G.R. No. 234880 — Gaudioso P. Costelo vs. People of the Philippines
Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. 8249 1 specifically provides:
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 order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.
Clear from the foregoing provision is that although the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City had jurisdiction to try the present case and render a valid judgment of conviction, nevertheless, the Court of Appeals (CA) did not possess any jurisdiction to entertain the appeal interposed by petitioner, whose case involved the falsification of public documents committed by a low-ranking government employee and whose salary grade was below Salary Grade 27. By virtue of RA 8249, appeals from the RTCs involving the latter class of government employees are now exclusively cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. The CA's judgment affirming with modification the RTC decision was, therefore, void, the same having been rendered by a court bereft of jurisdiction. It has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law and any judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given any effect. 2 In contemplation of law, it is non-existent.
Since petitioner had erroneously lodged his appeal with the CA instead with the proper court — the Sandiganbayan — his period to appeal had lapsed and the appealed RTC judgment had, by then, attained finality. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable. Let it be stressed 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 by law.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is DENIED. The August 26, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35954, as well as its Resolution of October 5, 2017, is declared NULL AND VOID for having been issued without jurisdiction.
Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari is likewise DENIED.
SO ORDERED." Sereno, C.J., on leave; De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
Very truly yours,(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan Amending for the Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes; approved February 5, 1997.
2.Magno vs. People, 662 Phil. 726, 735 (2011).