Torres v. People

G.R. No. 175074 (August 31, 2011)

Facts:

Petitioner Jesus U. Torres was charged with malversation of public funds in an Information dated November 15, 1994, while serving as the Principal of Viga Rural Development High School in Virac, Catanduanes. The charge stemmed from his alleged misappropriation of funds amounting to P196,654.54, which represented the salaries and allowances of the school’s employees. The funds were disbursed through three checks issued on April 26, 1994, which Torres encashed the following day but failed to return to the school to distribute the cash to the intended recipients.

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence showing that Torres had directed the school’s collection and disbursing officer, Edmundo Lazado, to prepare the checks. After encashing the checks, Torres did not return to the school, claiming he had to seek medical attention in Manila due to chest pain. He later reported that he was robbed of the cash by armed men while waiting for a ride on April 29, 1994.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Torres guilty of malversation of public funds on August 31, 2005, sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term and imposing a fine equivalent to the amount misappropriated. Torres filed a Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2005, but mistakenly directed it to the Court of Appeals instead of the Sandiganbayan, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such cases.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Torres' appeal outright for lack of jurisdiction instead of certifying the case to the proper court.
2. Whether Torres could be convicted of malversation despite the Information charging him with intentional malversation when the evidence suggested negligence.

Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Argument: Torres contended that his appeal should not have been dismissed outright, as he had inadvertently filed it in the wrong court. He argued that the Court should exercise discretion to allow the appeal to proceed to the Sandiganbayan, emphasizing his candor regarding the error.

• Respondent’s Argument: The Office of the Solicitor General argued for the outright dismissal of the appeal, citing the provisions of the Rules of Court that prohibit the transfer of an improperly filed appeal to the correct court. They maintained that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Torres' appeal by the Court of Appeals. It ruled that the designation of the wrong court does not invalidate the notice of appeal, but the correction must be made within the 15-day period to appeal. Torres failed to correct his appeal within this timeframe, as he only sought to do so on February 10, 2006, well beyond the deadline.

The Court also addressed the merits of the case, affirming that Torres was indeed an accountable officer under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines malversation. The Court clarified that malversation can occur through either intentional acts or negligence, and that a conviction for malversation by negligence is permissible even if the Information specifically charged intentional malversation. The Court concluded that the nature of the offense committed by Torres fell within the ambit of malversation, regardless of the mode of commission.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over cases involving public officers charged with malversation of public funds.
2. The principle that an appeal erroneously filed in the wrong court is subject to outright dismissal and cannot be transferred to the appropriate court.
3. The recognition that malversation can be committed either through intentional acts or negligence, allowing for conviction under either mode even if the Information specifies one.