FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 169309. October 5, 2016.]
STEVEN R. LEGARTO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 5, 2016which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 169309 — STEVEN R. LEGARTO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Assailed is the decision promulgated on February 21, 2005 by the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the conviction of the petitioner for a violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019. 1 The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, in Legazpi City, Albay had found him guilty of the offense, and had sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to 10 years, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, and to pay to offended party Joventino R. Roquid the sum of P3,240.00 representing his overpayment of the fees charged by the petitioner as an overstaying alien, P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and P50,000.00 as moral damages. 2
Likewise assailed is the resolution dated August 12, 2005, whereby the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 3
Antecedents
The petitioner and one Jose J. Llandejar were charged together in the RTC in Criminal Case No. 7179, for illegal exaction, and Criminal Case No. 7232, for violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 3019, under the following informations, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 7179
That sometime in the first week of August, 1995 up to September 20, 1995 in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused STEVEN R. LEGARTO, as Acting Chief, Regional Immigration District V, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, and Jose J. Llandejar, as Immigration Officer II, Regional Immigration District V, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, both holding office at Legazpi Sub-port, Legazpi City, while being entrusted with the collection of fees required by their office, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another for a common purpose by their direct acts, cooperation and indispensable participation did, (sic) then and there, wilfully, (sic) unlawfully (sic) and feloniously directly or indirectly demanded and/or received the amount of P4,000.00 and P2,000.00 as payment for the four (4) applications for conversion of the Alien Certification of Registration from Series "B" to Series "E" as required by the Social Integration Act filed by or pertaining to the private complainant, JOVENTINO R. ROQUID and that of his three (3) children; which amounts are different from or larger than those authorized by law and the pertinent BID regulations which is only P609.00 per application as shown by the official receipt issued to said private complainant in the sums of P440.00 processing fee and P250.00 as express lane fee, to the damage and prejudice of private complainant in the sum of P3,240.00 representing the difference between the legal fees and the amounts paid to above-named accused. DcHSEa
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 7232
That sometime in the first week of August, 1995, up to September 20, 1995, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused STEVEN R. LEGARTO, as Acting Chief, Regional Immigration District V, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and JOSE J. LLANDEJAR as Immigration Officer II, Regional Immigration District V, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, both holding offices at Legazpi Sub-port, Legazpi City while confederating, mutually helping one another for a common purpose by their direct acts, cooperation and indispensable participation did, (sic) then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully (sic) and feloniously directly or indirectly requested and/or received the amounts of P4,000.00 and P2,000.00 for themselves or for the benefit of the Roman A. Villanueva Law Offices, represented by Ms. Erlinda A. Soriano, Room 407, Burke Building, Escolta, Manila which was contracted by accused Steven R. Legarto to process applications for conversion of the Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) of all resident aliens in the Bicol Region, from private complainant, Juventino Reamico Roquid, in connection with the latter's four (4) Applications (including that of his three (3) children for conversion of their Alien Certificate of Registration from Series "B" to Series "E" as required by the Social Integration Act; which applications, the accused in any manner or capacity has secured or obtained or will secure or obtain the corresponding Alien Certificate of Registration (E Series) from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Main Office, Manila in consideration for the amount given as aforestated, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the total amount of P3,240.00, representing the difference between the legal fees of P690.00 per application and the total amount paid by complainant as aforementioned.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Following their arraignment, both accused were jointly tried. However, Llandejar died in the course of the trial, leaving the petitioner as the sole accused.
The CA adopted the summary of the factual and procedural antecedents rendered by the RTC, as follows:
The prosecution's evidence has shown that Joventino R. Roquid, Arsenio Salvante and Moises Saunar are members of the Fleet Reserve Association with main office at San Francisco, Nabua, Camarines Sur, where only retirees of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines and U.S. Coast Guards are qualified to join. On one occasion when Arsenio Salvante and Moises Saunar went to the office of the association in 1995, they found Mr. Navera with a companion from the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID for short) Regional Office processing the applications of the members for changing the Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR for short) from Series B to Series E, including fingerprinting of the applicants. The President of the Association told them that the processing fee was P1,700.00 per applicant. For lack of the required papers, they went home and decided to just go to submit their applications at the BID Office, Legazpi City in the hope that the fee could be lowered.
Sometime in the first week of August 1995 at around 9:00 A.M., Arsenio Salvante, Moises Saunar and Ignacio Salire went to the Office of the BID in Legazpi City. Thereat, Arsenio Salvante submitted his application for change of his ACR from Series B to Series E to Jose Llandejar. When asked about the expenses, Jose Llandejar told him that it will cost P1,700.00 per individual. Inquiring about the breakdown, he (Llandejar) said P450.00 is the receipted amount, P250.00 will go to the express lane, BID Main Office, Manila and the rest will go to the emissary who will personally bring the papers to Manila. When Arsenio Salvante bargained for P1,000.00, Jose Llandejar disagreed and returned their applications telling them to just file it in Manila. After talking things over, Salvante and Saunar decided to make advance payment of P1,400.00 each which they remitted to Jose Llandejar who accepted the money including their applications with instruction for them to return two (2) weeks after. However, when Arsenio Salvante went back as directed, he was informed that the papers were not yet finished prompting him to just go home. SCaITA
Later, Joventino Roquid went to see Arsenio Salvante in Polangui, Albay asking him (Salvante) to be a witness in his complaint. After consultation, Arsenio Salvante, Moises Saunar and Ignacio Salire agreed to be witnesses. Subsequently, Joventino Roquid with NBI Agent Estrellado took their Joint Affidavit on September 14, 1995 (Exhibit A with derivatives). Later that same month of September, eight (8) NBI Agents led by Messrs. Estrellado and Simeon Adan, Jr. met their group (Roquid, Salvante, Saunar and Salire) at Cress Restaurant in Legazpi City to discuss with them about an entrapment operation. The NBI Agents asked each of them for the cash they still have to pay the BID Office. Salvante and Saunar gave P300.00 each while Salire and Roquid remitted P1,700.00 and P2,000.00 respectively. Thirty minutes later, the cash were returned to each of them already as marked bills with instruction not to interchange it. Further, they were instructed to proceed to the BID Office in Legazpi City, to transact the business.
Upon arrival at the BID Office on September 20, 1995 at around 10:00 A.M., Salvante, Saunar, Salire and Roquid proceeded to the table of Jose Llandejar who instructed them to transact their business instead with Steven R. Lagarto. So Salvante, Saunar, Salire and Roquid remitted the pre-marked bills in the total sum of P4,300.00 to Steven R. Legarto who placed it inside the partially opened drawer of his table and he gave the applications for final fingerprinting to Jose Llandejar. At this instance, the NBI agents shouted "freeze." Then, Salvante, Saunar, Salire and Roquid went out of the BID Office.
Relative to the entrapment conducted, Salvante, Saunar and Salire were made to execute a Joint Affidavit (Exhibit D, with derivatives). Steven Legarto did not issue them receipts for the marked money (Exhibit I, with derivatives) he received from each of them during the entrapment. Neither did Jose Llandejar issue receipts for the advance payment made by Salvante and Saunar at P1,400.00 each.
With respect to the complainant Joventino Roquid, he went to the Office of the BID Legazpi City on August 2, 1995 for the purpose of inquiring about the requirements for the conversion of his ACR from Series B to Series E as a retired U.S. Navy and his four (4) children. When given the breakdown of the expenses by accused Jose Llandejar, to wit: P10.00 legal fee; P30.00 for application form; P250.00 for express lane service; P400.00 for the Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR); and P1,010.00 for the person who will go to Manila for the processing, or a total of P1,700.00 per applicant, he found it to be excessive. However, Jose Llandejar did not react although Steven Lagarto who was a meter away from them at his table was intervening in their conversation. When Roquid objected to the P250.00 express lane fee which is not applicable to Legazpi City, Steven Legarto shouted that it is only P450.00. Since there was no reaction from Jose Llandejar, he (Roquid) left.
In a meeting called by Steven R. Legarto on August 7, 1995 held at the AVR on the third floor of the Municipal Hall of Legazpi City, attended by Joventino Roquid among others, he (Legarto) announced the reason for the replacement of the ACR from Series B to Series E including the fees to be collected in the sum of P1,700.00 per applicant with the same breakdown already given earlier by Jose Llandejar.
After said meeting, Roquid met Messrs. Saunar, Salire and Salvante at the BID Office in Legazpi City in the same month of August 1995. He learned from them that the fee being collected from them for the conversion of the ACR was also P1,700.00 per individual with the same breakdown. After their conversation, they parted ways. aTHCSE
On August 29, 1995, Joventino Roquid went back to the BID Office in Legazpi City to submit the requirements and to give an advance payment of the expenses. When he asked a discount from Jose Llandejar, he was granted a P700.00 discount per applicant after Steven Legarto agreed. So, of the P5,000.00 due for his ACR and that of his four (4) children at P1,000.00 each, he (Roquid) gave Jose Llandejar an advance payment of P4,000.00 with a promise to pay the balance upon completion of the applications. Then, Llandejar gave the amount of P4,000.00 to Legarto who accepted it and placed it inside his pocket. No receipt for the amount was issued by either although Jose Llandejar told Roquid that the receipts will be given after the applications arrive from Manila.
As promised by Jose Llandejar, the application of Joventino Roquid was not done in the first week of September 1995 when he was told to return (sic). Instead, he was informed by Llandejar that the application of his daughter Michelle was not processed without any reason given. Worst yet, Roquid was given a recomputation by Llandejar of what he has to pay, that is, P1,700.00 per applicant or a total of P6,800.00 for the four (4) of them. Eventually, Llandejar gave Roquid a discount of P800.00, thereby making his balance to only P2,000.00 due to his advance payment of P4,000.00.
Joventino Roquid gave the balance of P2,000.00 on September 20, 1995 during the entrapment operation per instruction of the NBI Agents as already discussed above. His ACR and those of his children with the other pertinent papers were issued to them in 1996 already (Exhibits G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R, respectively).
For being represented by a private lawyer as complainant in the above-entitled cases, he agreed to pay him an acceptance fee of P10,000.00 and P500.00 per appearance fee for every hearing. Likewise, he suffered sleepless nights and mental anguish as a consequence of the acts complained of and demands for P400,000.00 for said feelings. AHDacC
On the entrapment aspect, Special Investigator III Simeon Jesus B. Adan, Jr. accompanied the four complainants Joventino Roquid, Arsenio Salvante, Moises Saunar and Ignacio Salire to the BID Office in Legazpi City to entrap Steven R. Legarto at 10:20 A.M. on September 20, 1995. Each of them handed the specially marked bills to Steven Legarto who accepted the money. Then, he (Legarto) placed the marked bills inside his open drawer. When Legarto was about to close the drawer, NBI Agent Adan held his hand to prevent him from closing and locking the drawer and Adan identified himself as NBI Operative. Steven Legarto was surprised. When Atty. Raymundo V. Sarga, team leader of the operation arrived, he informed the accused Steven Legarto of the entrapment operation and photographs were taken of the specially marked bills inside the drawer of Legarto. Then, an inventory of the seized articles was made (Exhibit V, with derivatives) and Steven Legarto was placed under arrest. NBI agents Adan and Magdaraog executed a Joint Affidavit (Exhibit U) relative to the operation.
Further, accused Steven Legarto has been an Immigration Officer II since May 9, 1993 until June 23, 1997 as shown by his Service Record (Exhibit W, with derivatives).
After the prosecution rested its case, the initial reception of defense evidence was set on November 17, 1999 which was re-scheduled to January 13, 2000 for lack of notice to the accused and his counsel. However, the latter setting was postponed to January 31, 2000 at the instance of the prosecution.
The trial on January 31, 2000 did not proceed due to the absence of the defense counsel and over the objection of the prosecution, the hearing was reset to [M]arch 13, 2000 with a stern warning to the accused to be ready next time otherwise, his right to present evidence will be deemed as waived.
For failure of the accused to adduce evidence on March 13, 2000 as agreed, the court considered his right to do so as waived and the cases were deemed submitted for decision.
A motion to re-open cases was filed by the defense which was opposed by the prosecution but the court, in the highest interest of justice and to give the accused his day in court, granted the latter the last opportunity to present his evidence. Five (5) trial dates were allotted to him with the condition that failure to do so on any of the dates given shall be deemed a waiver of such right and the cases deemed submitted for decision.
Thus, consistent with the Order of October 17, 2000, the Motion for Postponement of the setting on November 17, 2000 by the lawyer of the accused was denied and again the accused was considered to have waived presentation of evidence and the cases deemed submitted for decision.
Subsequently, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the accused on November 23, 2000 which was opposed by the prosecution was denied by the court on January 24, 2001. Since no action was taken thereon by the defense, the court on March 2, 2001 issued an order considering the cases submitted for decision.
The court has to decide the cases solely on the basis of prosecution's evidence as the accused repeatedly failed to adduce any despite the several opportunities given him. 4 IDSEAH
As stated, the RTC, through the decision dated May 29, 2001, 5 pronounced the petitioner guilty as charged in both cases on the basis of the foregoing antecedents, and disposed thusly:
WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Steven R. Legarto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged in the Informations in the above-entitled cases and hereby sentences him, in Criminal Case No. 7179, to pay a fine of P5,000.00 and in Criminal Case No. 7232, to suffer an imprisonment, after applying the [I]ndeterminate [S]entence Law, ranging from six (6) years and one (1) month to ten (10) years with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office and to pay the offended party Joventino Roquid the sum of P3,240.00 as overpayment of the fees due and the further sums of P10,000.00 as attorney's fee and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
Costs against the accused Steven R. Legarto.
SO ORDERED. 6
On August 6, 2001, the petitioner paid the fine of P5,000.00 imposed in Criminal Case No. 7179. His payment rendered his conviction in Criminal Case No. 7179 final and immutable.
As to Criminal Case No. 7232, the petitioner sought reconsideration on August 9, 2001, but the RTC denied his motion for reconsideration on October 18, 2001. 7
The petitioner thereafter appealed to the CA, urging as follows:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 7232 FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (C) OF R.A. 3019.
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS ESTABLISHED IN EVIDENCE THE FACTS WHICH CONSTITUTED VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (C), R.A. 3019.
III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF COMPLAINANT JOVENTINO ROQUID.
IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN PLACED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. 8
Through the assailed decision promulgated on February 21, 2005, the CA affirmed the petitioner's conviction in Criminal Case No. 7232, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. Branch 10 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED. 9
On August 12, 2005, the CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 10 aCIHcD
Issues
Hence, this appeal, whereby the petitioner submits that it was the Sandiganbayan, not the RTC, that had original jurisdiction over the offense charged; 11 that the CA erred in holding that he was estopped from challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, and that he had effectively waived his right to challenge the trial court's jurisdiction over the case; 12 that all the authorities cited by the CA in applying the principle of estoppel against him involved civil cases; 13 that his case did not offer any exceptional circumstance analogous to the situations covered by the authorities cited by the CA; 14 and that jurisdiction in criminal cases was a matter of law that could be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal. 15
In its comment, 16 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the principle of estoppel by laches, deeds or records to bar challenges to the jurisdiction of a court is also applicable to criminal cases; 17 and that the petitioner is now estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC over the offense charged against him. 18
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The jurisdiction of the courts to hear and decide a case is conferred by the statute in force at the time of the institution of the action, unless such statute provides for its retroactive application. 19 For this case, the reckoning point is June 26, 1996, the date when the criminal information for the violation of Republic Act No. 3019 was filed in the RTC. The relevant provision of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975, is Section 4, which defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan at the time of the filing of the information, to wit:
Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise original jurisdiction on all cases involving:
xxx xxx xxx
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the principal accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade "27" and higher of the Compensation and Posting Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
xxx xxx xxx
In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade "27" or higher, as prescribe[d] 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 information in Criminal Case No. 7232 charged the petitioner in his capacity as the Acting Chief of the Regional Immigration District V of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. Even so, there was no indication therein that he was the Acting Regional Director at the time of the commission of the offense. Based on his service record, he was an Immigration Officer II from May 9, 1993 until June 23, 1997, 20 the period that covered the time of the commission of the offense charged. He was thus occupying a position corresponding only to Salary Grade 13 under Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989) and the relevant issuances of the Department of Budget and Management at the time of the commission of the offenses. 21 As such, the criminal charge in Criminal Case No. 7232 was properly filed in the RTC, the court with the exclusive original jurisdiction pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975, supra.
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner's remedy against his conviction was to bring an ordinary appeal to the Sandiganbayan, the court with appellate jurisdiction in relation to the RTC pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No. 7975, to wit:
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. cHaCAS
The ordinary appeal was to be made in conformity with Section 1, Rule XI, Part III of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan, which states:
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.
Yet, the petitioner erroneously brought his appeal to the CA. With the CA not having appellate jurisdiction, the appeal should have been dismissed as required by Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Section 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals. — An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal instead of by petition for review from the appellate judgment of a Regional Trial Court shall be dismissed.
An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.
Accordingly, the February 21, 2005 decision, being void for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the part of the CA, was not reviewable by the Court. The consequence was to cause the May 29, 2001 decision of the RTC to become final and executory by virtue of the failure to appeal it to the Sandiganbayan within the reglementary period of 15 days from the promulgation. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period was mandatory, and the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court unavoidably rendered the judgment final as to preclude the proper appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment. 22 The statutory nature of the right to appeal required the petitioner as the appealing party to strictly comply with the statutes or rules governing the perfection of the appeal because such statutes or rules were considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and were instituted to ensure the orderly discharge of judicial business. In the absence of highly exceptional circumstances warranting their relaxation, therefore, the statutes or rules should remain inviolable. 23 ScHADI
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; DECLARES the decision promulgated on February 21, 2005 decision null and void; PRONOUNCES the decision rendered on May 29, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court final and executory; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 22-38; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino (retired), with the concurrence of Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso (retired).
2. Id. at 66-78; penned by RTC Judge Alfredo E. Kallos.
3. Id. at 53-54.
4. Id. at 24-28.
5. Supra note 2.
6. Id. at 77-78.
7. Id. at 23-28.
8. Id. at 29.
9. Id. at 37-38.
10. Id. at 54.
11. Id. at 7.
12. Id. at 8.
13. Id. at 10.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 17.
16. Id. at 132-149.
17. Id. at 108.
18. Id. at 139.
19. Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 63, 69.
20. Rollo, p. 73.
21. http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/OPCCB/ios/IOS_Updated_Volume%2011_2006.htm. Accessed on September 30, 2016.
22. Prieto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158597, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 371, 378.
23. Id. at 378-379.