People v. Yalong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from a complaint filed by Lucila C. Ylagan against Fely Y. Yalong for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22). The charge stemmed from Yalong issuing a postdated check for P450,000.00 to Ylagan as payment for a loan. Upon presentation, the check was dishonored due to the account being closed. Yalong denied liability, claiming she had already paid the loan and that the check belonged to her husband, having been given to Ylagan after her husband had already signed it. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Yalong guilty of violating BP 22 and sentenced her to imprisonment and to pay Ylagan the loan amount with interest and attorney's fees. Yalong's motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a notice of appeal, which was denied by the MTCC because the judgment was promulgated in absentia and she failed to surrender. A subsequent Petition for Relief from Order and Denial of Appeal was also dismissed by the MTCC. Yalong then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which was also denied. Subsequently, Yalong filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which the CA dismissed, holding that a notice of appeal, not a petition for review, was the proper remedy. The Petition: Yalong filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's dismissal of her Petition for Review. She argued that the CA erred in dismissing her appeal. The Supreme Court, however, affirmed the CA's decision, holding that Yalong should have filed a notice of appeal with the RTC, as the RTC's denial of her certiorari petition was an exercise of its original jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the mode of appeal and the period for filing are jurisdictional and must be strictly followed. The Court also noted that even if the procedural issue were overlooked, the MTCC had proper jurisdiction over the case because the check was dishonored in Batangas City.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) properly dismissed the petition for review on the ground of improper appeal. Whether the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) correctly took cognizance of the criminal case for violation of BP 22.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated August 1, 2008 and March 10, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 104075, which dismissed petitioner Fely Y. Yalong's Petition for Review on the ground that it was an improper mode of appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Improper Appeal: The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed Yalong's petition for review. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Yalong's petition for certiorari in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. According to Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, appeals to the Court of Appeals from decisions of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC. Yalong, however, filed a petition for review with the CA, which is the mode of appeal required when the RTC acts in its appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the modes of appeal are distinct procedures and cannot be interchanged. A notice of appeal is filed with the court that rendered the assailed decision, while a petition for review is filed with the appellate court. Furthermore, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance is fatal, rendering the judgment final and executory. Yalong's failure to file a notice of appeal with the RTC within the reglementary period meant that the RTC Decision had attained finality. On the Issue of Territorial Jurisdiction: Even discounting the procedural defect, the Court found that the MTCC had properly acquired jurisdiction over the criminal case. Violation of BP 22 cases are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes, meaning that essential acts may occur in different territories. The court where any of the essential and material acts have been committed retains jurisdiction. This includes the place where the check was drawn, issued, delivered, or dishonored. In this case, while the check was drawn, issued, and delivered in Manila, it was presented for deposit and encashment in Batangas City, where its dishonor was discovered. Therefore, the MTCC correctly took cognizance of the case as it had territorial jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a petition for review instead of a notice of appeal when the RTC ruled in its original jurisdiction is a fatal procedural error that renders the judgment final and executory. The modes of appeal are distinct and cannot be interchanged.