[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 306 views

    Dizon Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jerome Leaño
    Petitioner Dizon was charged with six counts of Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents related to his role collecting parking fees. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 years and 10 days to 10 years and 10 days imprisonment for each count. Petitioner noticed his appeal was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction. He filed a Motion to Endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan, but the Court of Appeals denied this and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion, as petitioner's position fell under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan based on his salary grade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dizon Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jerome Leaño
    306 views1 page
    Petitioner Dizon was charged with six counts of Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents related to his role collecting parking fees. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 years and 10 days to 10 years and 10 days imprisonment for each count. Petitioner noticed his appeal was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction. He filed a Motion to Endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan, but the Court of Appeals denied this and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion, as petitioner's position fell under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan based on his salary grade.

    Original Description:

    j

    Original Title

    Dizon vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Dizon was charged with six counts of Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents related to his role collecting parking fees. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 years and 10 days to 10 years and 10 days imprisonment for each count. Petitioner noticed his appeal was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction. He filed a Motion to Endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan, but the Court of Appeals denied this and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion, as petitioner's position fell under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan based on his salary grade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    306 views1 page

    Dizon Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Jerome Leaño
    Petitioner Dizon was charged with six counts of Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents related to his role collecting parking fees. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 6 years and 10 days to 10 years and 10 days imprisonment for each count. Petitioner noticed his appeal was erroneously filed with the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction. He filed a Motion to Endorse the case to the Sandiganbayan, but the Court of Appeals denied this and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the motion, as petitioner's position fell under the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan based on his salary grade.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Dizon vs People

    Facts:
    This case stemmed from six (6) separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of
    Manila, Branch 42 (RTC), respectively docketed as Criminal (Crim.) Case Nos. 09-272518 to
    23, charging petitioner of the crime of Malversation of Public Funds through Falsification of
    Public Documents. The prosecution averred that petitioner, being then an employee of the
    Manila Traffic and Parking Bureau of the City of Manila with the position of Special Collecting
    Officer, was entrusted to collect monthly parking fees from various establishments, and
    subsequently, forward such fees, together with the triplicate copies of the corresponding O.R.s,
    to the City Treasurer of Manila.

    In a Decision dated December 23, 2014, the RTC found petitioner guilty of six (6) counts of
    Malversation of Public Funds Through Falsification of Public Documents, and thereby,
    sentenced him to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and ten (10) days of prision correccional, as
    minimum, to ten (10) years and ten (10) days of prision mayor, as maximum, for each count,
    including the penalty of perpetual special disqualification, and to pay a fine of P70,800.00.

    However, petitioner subsequently noticed that his appeal was erroneously taken to the CA
    instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has appellate jurisdiction over his case pursuant to
    Section 4 (c) of Republic Act No. (RA) 8249. Thus, to rectify the error, he filed the Motion to
    Endorse Case to the Sandiganbayan, as well as the appellant's brief, before the CA. In a
    Resolution36 dated June 16, 2016, the CA denied petitioner's Motion to Endorse, and
    consequently, dismissed his appeal for having been erroneously filed.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's Motion to Endorse.

    Held:
    It is undisputed that petitioner is a low-ranking public officer having a salary grade below 27.
    Thus, since petitioner's case properly falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the
    Sandiganbayan, his appeal was erroneously taken to the CA.

    "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 or 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 jurisdiction as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

    "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
    resolutions or orders or regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original
    jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

    You might also like