ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. Nos. 130226. May 18, 2004]
PEOPLE vs. DELIPE
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 18 2004 .
G.R. Nos. 130226 and 144004-07 and G.R. Nos. 132031-32 (People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Dalipe y Perez.)
The cases at bar stemmed from the joint decision 1 promulgated on August 6, 1997 by Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City convicting the accused, Edwin Dalipe y Perez, of three (3) counts of statutory rape in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63737, Q-95-63738, and Q-95-63739, and two (2) counts of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63740 and Q-95-63741. The dispositive portion of the joint decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Edwin Dalipe y Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of statutory rape (3 counts).
In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-95-63737-38, the Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count as penalized under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 for each count as moral and exemplary damages, respectively.
In Criminal Case No. Q-[95]-63739, the accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH as penalized by Sec. 11 of RA 7659 and to indemnify the victim the amount of P50,000.00 and P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages, respectively.
In Criminal Cases Nos. Q-95-637340-41, judgment is likewise rendered finding said accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness (2 counts) penalized under Sec. 5, paragraph b of RA 7610, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate sentence of 9 years and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum to 15 years, 8 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal as maximum, for each count.
SO ORDERED. 2 (Italics supplied)
Following the promulgation of the judgment, the accused filed on August 15, 1997 before the trial court his notice of appeal which reads:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
COMES NOW, the accused, by his undersigned counsel and within the reglementary period prescribed by the Rules of Court hereby files this notice of appeal from the judgment of convictions rendered by this Court in Criminal Cases Nos. [Q]-95-63738, Q-95-63739, Q-95-63740 and Q-95-63741 and appeals to the Court of Appeals on both questions of fact and of law;
The conviction in Criminal Case No. Q-95-63737 (Death Penalty) is, in law, automatically elevated for review to the Supreme Court. 3 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the above-quoted notice of appeal, counsel erroneously stated that the conviction in Criminal Case No. Q-95-63737 is automatically elevated for review to the Supreme Court, the penalty imposed being death. It is Criminal Case No. Q-95-63739, however, not Criminal Case No. Q-95-63737, which imposed the death penalty. The penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. Q-95-63737 was reclusion perpetua.
Counsel for the accused likewise indicated that he was appealing the judgment in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63738 and Q-95-63739 to the Court of Appeals. The penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. Q-95-63738, however, is reclusion perpetua while that in Criminal Case No. Q-95-63739 is death.
Hence, it is the Supreme Court which has appellate jurisdiction over Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63737, Q-95-63738 and Q-95-63739, for it has appellate jurisdiction over cases where the penalty imposed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or where a lesser penalty is imposed but for an offense which was committed on the same occasion or arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed. 4
The erroneous notice of appeal directed to the Court of Appeals notwithstanding, the same may still be given due course as held in People v. Montinola: 5
WILLIAM'S notice of appeal has not escaped our attention. He therein stated that he was appealing the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals. It must be noted that it is the Supreme Court, and not the Court of Appeals, that has appellate jurisdiction over all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. As to judgments in which [the] death penalty is imposed, such as the judgment in Criminal Case No. 47169, no notice of appeal is necessary, as the same is subject to automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. But as to judgments imposing reclusion perpetua, such as that in Criminal Case No. 47168, the appeal to this Court shall be by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court.
WILLIAM'S notice of appeal from the judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 47168-69, albeit erroneous since it was directed to the Court of Appeals, may nevertheless be given due course. For even without that or even if he did not appeal from said judgment, we would nevertheless review the same conformably with our ruling in People vs. Alitagtag, as affirmed in People vs. Contreras. We ruled therein that where cases have been consolidated and jointly tried, and only one decision is rendered sentencing the accused in one and reclusion perpetua in the others, he would be deemed to have appealed from the judgment in the latter cases. 6 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted).
The entire records of Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63737-41 were forwarded to the Supreme Court and were received on September 4, 1997. The cases were raffled and docketed as G.R. Nos. 130226 and 144004-07. These docket numbers correspond to the five (5) criminal cases jointly tried and decided by the RTC.
From the records of the cases, it is gathered that the two (2) incidents of acts of lasciviousness allegedly took place on February 17, 1994 7 and around the first week of June 1994. 8 On the other hand, the three (3) incidents of rape allegedly took place on the first Friday of May 1992, 9 around the second week of July 1992, 10 and on July 29, 1995. 11 In other words, it cannot be concluded that the two (2) incidents of acts of lasciviousness were committed on the same occasion or arose out of the same occurrence as any of the three (3) incidents of rape.
Since the Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63740-41 as the penalty imposed is not death, or life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua, and the two (2) incidents of acts of lasciviousness were not committed on the same occasion or arose out of the same occurrence as any of the three (3) incidents of rape, the case of People v. Aquino 12 is in point.
What we have here is a consolidation of three cases brought against the appellant by his nieces. The two counts of acts of lasciviousness were not committed on the same occasion and did not arise out of the same occurrence as that which gave rise to the crime of rape. Thus, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the trial court on the two counts of acts of lasciviousness jointly with the automatic review of crime of qualified rape for which the death penalty was imposed. Clearly, for Section 17 (1) of R.A. No. 296 to apply, the lesser offenses must be committed on the same occasion or must arise out of the same occurrence as that of the graver offense which merited the death penalty. The Informations for the three cases merely state that these offenses were committed on or about October 1999 in Taguig where the appellant and complainants' houses were located. Nothing in the record even remotely suggests that appellant abused all three children on the same occasion. In fact, Charlaine even tried to warn Charmela about her unfortunate experience not knowing that their uncle had already molested her sisters on separate occasions. Thus, the three offenses were committed during the same period in October but on different dates. For this reason, appellant should have filed separate notices of appeal for the two counts of acts of lasciviousness.
In People vs. Alay-ay, this Court held that the appeal from a judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court in its original jurisdiction imposing a penalty other than reclusion perpetua or death must be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing of a notice of appeal with the trial court and by serving a copy thereof on the adverse party . Since appellant did not appeal the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases Nos. 116860-H and 116861 to the Court of Appeals, the decision became final and executory after the lapse of the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal. With this result, we now limit our review to Criminal Case No. 116859-H for qualified rape where the trial court imposed the death penalty. 13 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
While it may be more practical and expedient for this Court to decide Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63740 and Q-95-63741 along with Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63737 to 39, People v. Francisco 14 has cautioned against adopting such a move and has instead adhered to the strict letter of the law.
Inescapably, the penalty of reclusion temporal meted out to accused-appellant in Grim. Case No. Q-97-73696 (now G.R. No. 135202) for acts of lasciviousness is within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Upon the other hand, Crim. Case No. Q-97-73695 (now G.R. No. 135201) for rape, the penalty imposed therein being death, perforce falls within the jurisdiction of this Court on automatic review.
While we are not unmindful of the practical advantages of a single consolidated review of these two (2) criminal cases, we cannot array any legal justification therefor without infringing upon the jurisdictional boundaries so clearly delineated by our statutes. Hence, we have no other recourse but to recognize this as a case of split appellate jurisdiction. We cannot infuse new meaning into the provisions of our statutes apportioning appellate jurisdictions between this Court and the Court of Appeals because their mandates and terms are specific and unmistakable. Nor can we widen the scope of our appellate jurisdiction on the basis of the fact that the trial court heard two (2) distinct and separate cases simultaneously. Such procedure adopted by the trial court cannot and did not result in the merger of the two (2) offenses. In fact, a cursory reading of the assailed decision of the court a quo reveals with pristine clarity that each case was separately determined by the trial judge, as each should be separately reviewed on appeal. Appellate competence is circumscribed by statute, and not flux and ferment to be settled by the exigencies of trial proceedings .
In fine, it is obvious that accused-appellant's conviction for acts of lasciviousness should have been appealed to the Court of Appeals, instead of elevating the case to this Court which has no jurisdiction over it. Consequently, being with the wrong forum, the appeal in Crim. Case No. Q-97-73696 for acts of lasciviousness erroneously brought to us is dismissed and the decision therein of the court a quo stands. With this result, we now limit our review to Crim. Case No. Q-97-73695 for rape where the trial court imposed the death penalty. 15 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
It bears noting that, as reflected earlier, the accused indicated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63740 and Q-95-63741 to the Court of Appeals. The decisions in said cases have, therefore, yet to become final and executory.
On January 21, 1998, this Court received another set of records of Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63740-41 which was transmitted by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals per instruction 16 of the Presiding Justice. The cases were raffled, docketed as G.R. Nos. 132031-32, and likewise captioned People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalipe y Perez.
An examination of the records quite clearly reveals that G.R. Nos. 132031-32 are already included in G.R. Nos. 130226 and 144004-07 which covers all five (5) appealed cases (i.e., Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-63737-41).
IN VIEW THEREOF, this Court RESOLVES to:
(a) WITHDRAW G.R. Nos. 132031-32 from the dockets of this Court as the cases covered thereby had earlier been docketed as -G.R. Nos. 130226 and 144004-07; and
(b) WITHDRAW from the dockets of this Court, Criminal Case Nos. Q-9563740 and Q-956371, the two (2) cases involving acts of lasciviousness, and TRANSFER the same to the Court of Appeals.
Davide, Jr., C.J. and Puno, J., on official business.
Very truly your,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Acting Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 Records at 222-240.
2 Id. at 240.
3 Id. at 243.
4 RULES OF COURT, Rule 122, sec. 3, par. (c).
5 360 SCRA 631(2001).
6 Id. at 637.
7 Records at 8.
8 Id. at 10.
9 Id. at 2.
10 Id. 4.
11 Id. at 6.
12 381 SCRA 273 (2002).
13 Id. at 282-283.
14 354 SCRA 475 (2001).
15 Id. at 484-485.
16 G.R. Nos, 132031-32 Rollo at 1.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
