SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235026. September 16, 2020.]
NOEMI J. QUILLOY, *petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235026 (Noemi J. Quilloy v. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES the letter dated July 23, 2020 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila transmitting the original records, transcript of stenographic notes, and the rollo of CA-G.R. CR No. 38708 in compliance with the Resolution dated June 22, 2020.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated June 29, 2017 and the Resolution 2 dated October 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38708.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner Noemi J. Quilloy (petitioner) was employed as Administrative Assistant of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the City Prosecutor, Calamba City, Laguna. Her duties involve taking care of the administrative office records and the recording and keeping of files. Later on, she was also designated as Collection Officer for collection of filing fees, clearances, and other related fees. 3
From the years 2006 to 2008, petitioner failed to submit reports on her collections. Hence, on May 9, 2009, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Severino Gana, Jr., issued Office Order No. 72 to conduct an audit to determine the reasons why petitioner failed to submit said reports.
During the audit, petitioner was directed to present all necessary documents such as the official receipts, official cash books, cash receipts records, report of collection and deposit, summary report of collection and deposit, monthly report of accountability for accountable forms, validated deposit slips, used and unused official receipts, and cash on hand.
However, petitioner failed to provide all the required documents. She was able to present only the following: the cash book which was not updated, used and unused official receipts, validated deposit slips, incomplete reports of collections, incomplete monthly report of accountability for accountable forms, and incomplete monthly summary of collections and deposits. Since petitioner's submission was incomplete, the audit team encoded all the official receipts issued to arrive at the total amount of collections from the time petitioner started as a collecting officer up to the time of the audit. The validated deposit slips were also scrutinized to determine if there was a shortage in her collections. 4
After encoding, the DOJ auditing team discovered that the total amount of collections based on the official receipts of fees was P2,188,888.00. Yet, the total amount of actual deposits was only P1,402,873.00. There was a cash shortage of P786,015.00, which petitioner failed to deposit as part of collections as of January 9, 2009. Consequently, an official audit report was made. 5
In a Memorandum dated April 24, 2009, Ernesto C. Mendoza, Regional State Prosecutor of Region 4, San Pablo City, Laguna, directed petitioner to restitute the amount she failed to deposit. However, petitioner failed to make any restitution. Hence, a Complaint Affidavit for Malversation of Public Funds dated July 29, 2009 was filed with the Regional State Prosecution Office of Region 4, San Pablo City, Laguna, against petitioner. 6
In an Information dated June 3, 2010, petitioner was charged with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 37, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about May 16, 2005 up to October 2008, in Calamba City, province of Laguna, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused being then an Administrative Assistant of the Department of Justice, Office of the City Prosecutor, Calamba City, and acting as the Collection Officer of the said Office, and as such accountable for the public funds collected and received by reason of her position, by way of filing fees, costs and other fees, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, and with grave abuse of confidence, misappropriated, misapplied, and embezzled, and converted to her own personal use and benefit, from said funds, the sum of Seven Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Fifteen Pesos (P786,015.00) Philippine currency and despite demand to restitute the amount failed to do so, to the great detriment of the public interest.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
When arraigned on August 2, 2010, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial ensued. 8
In her defense, petitioner testified that she did not know anything about the charge against her, except that she wondered why she was being charged of different amounts. She likewise recalled that on March 9, 2009, there was an audit conducted by the DOJ and assisted in the same by giving the members of the audit team all of the documents they needed. According to petitioner, she submitted a letter addressed to the Chief Accountant of the DOJ, informing her that sometime in 2006, the filing cabinet where petitioner kept all the documents, more particularly the deposit slips and cash money, was opened. She admitted her failure to comply with the accounting practices required by the DOJ but promised to return the amount that was found to be lost. 9
In a letter dated January 17, 2010, petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Chief Prosecutor of the DOJ, wherein she asked for leniency and gave an undertaking to return the amount on installment basis via salary deduction. She likewise wrote a letter to the Secretary of Justice regarding the matter. She alleged that while a case was already filed against her, she continued to report for work until August 2014. 10
Ruling of the RTC
On April 27, 2016, the RTC rendered a judgement finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. The RTC disposed, thusly:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, accused NOEMI H. QUILLOY is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of malversation and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for a period of TWELVE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to EIGHTEEN YEARS of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. Accused is further sentenced to suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and is likewise ordered to pay a fine equivalent to the amount malversed or the amount of Seven Hundred Eighty[-]Six Thousand Fifteen Pesos (Php786,015.00) and to indemnify the Department of Justice the amount of Seven Hundred Eighty[-]Six Thousand Fifteen Pesos (Php786,015.00), with interest thereon, and to pay costs.
SO ORDERED. 11
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Decision of the CA
In a Decision dated June 29, 2017, the CA sustained the conviction of petitioner. It disposed thusly:
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Judgment dated April 27, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37 of Calamba City in Criminal Case No. 17329-2010-C for malversation of public funds is hereby AFFIRMED with modifications in that:
(a) accused-appellant Noemi [J]. Quilloy is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 6 months of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 18 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum; and
(b) her indemnification of P786,015.00 shall accrue a 6% interest rate per annum from the finality of this decision until full payment thereof.
All other aspects of the fallo of the assailed Judgment are maintained.
SO ORDERED. 12
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 13 dated July 21, 2017. However, it was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated October 24, 2017.
Hence, petitioner filed this instant petition to challenge her conviction.
Our Ruling
The Court cannot entertain this petition.
It must be noted that the instant petition involves an RTC conviction on Malversation of Public Funds committed by a public officer with a monthly salary of P16,000.00, a salary grade lower than SG 27. Petitioner should have appealed the judgment of the RTC to the Sandiganbayan within fifteen (15) days 14 from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order appealed from pursuant to Paragraph 3, Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. 8249, 15 which provides:
SECTION 4. Section of the same decree is hereby further amended to read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
It is manifest from the above provision that the decisions of the RTC — convicting an accused who occupies a position lower than that of Salary Grade 27 or those not otherwise covered by the enumeration of certain public officers in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606 as amended by Republic Act No. 8249 — are to be appealed exclusively to the Sandiganbayan. 16
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. 17 What is more, the filing of a wrong appeal did not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.
The appeal by petitioner should have been dismissed by the Court of Appeals given that it had no jurisdiction to review the assailed Decision and Resolution of the RTC. In addition, the Decision of the RTC convicting petitioner has long become final and executory, and hence, the same can no longer be altered or modified, even if modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment has become final and executory, the issues there should be laid to rest. 18
In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to refrain from further discussing the merits of the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 37, in Criminal Case No. 17329-2010-C, finding petitioner Noemi J. Quilloy GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is declared FINAL and EXECUTORY.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Baltazar-Padilla, J., on leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also referred to as Noemi H. Quilloy in some parts of the rollo.
1. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring; rollo, pp. 24-33.
2.Id. at 34-35.
3.Id. at 48.
4.Id. at 48-49.
5.Id. at 49.
6.Id. at 49-50.
7. CA rollo, pp. 1-2.
8.Rollo, p. 50.
9.Id. at 27.
10.Id. at 27-28.
11.Id. at 24-25.
12.Id. at 32.
13. CA rollo, pp. 102-107.
14. Section 6, Rule 122, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
15. 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.
16.Estarija v. People, 619 Phil. 457 (2009).
17.Quileste v. People, 599 Phil. 117, 122 (2009).
18.Azansa v. People, G.R. No. 215517 (Notice), April 18, 2018.