Arriola vs. Sandiganbayan

7/9/2015 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME494

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014e71d37e662a2719e3000a0094004f00ee/p/AKR360/?username=Guest 1/16

344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDArriola vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 165711. June 30, 2006.*

HERMOSO ARRIOLA and MELCHOR RADAN,petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

Appeals Appeal is not a vested right but a mere statutoryprivilege.We cannot fault the Sandiganbayan for dismissing theappeal outright for it was merely applying the law and existingjurisprudence on the matter. Appeal is not a vested right but amere statutory privilege thus, appeal must be made strictly inaccordance with provisions set by law. Section 2, Rule 50 clearlyrequires that the correction in designating the proper appellatecourt should be made within the 15day period to appeal.

Same Dismissals of appeals on purely technical grounds isfrowned upon.The rules of procedure ought not to be applied ina very rigid, technical sense for they have been adopted to helpsecurenot overridesubstantial justice. This Court hasrepeatedly stressed that the ends of justice would be served betterwhen cases are determined, not on mere technicality or someprocedural nicety, but on the meritsafter all the parties aregiven full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses. Lestit be forgotten, dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds isfrowned upon.

Accountability of Public Officers Words and Phrases Anaccountable officer under Article 217 is a public officer who, byreason of his office is accountable for public funds or property.An accountable officer under Article 217 is a public officer who,by reason of his office is accountable for public funds or property.Sec. 101 (1) of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines(PD No. 1455) defines accountable officer to be every officer of anygovernment agency whose duties permit or require the possessionor custody of government funds or property and who shall be



accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformitywith law.

Same In the determination of who is an accountable officer, itis the nature of duties which he performsnot the nomenclature orthe relative importance the position heldwhich is the controlling

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

345

VOL. 494, JUNE 30, 2006 345

Arriola vs. Sandiganbayan

factor.In the determination of who is an accountable officer, it isthe nature of the duties which he performsand not thenomenclature or the relative importance the position heldwhichis the controlling factor.

Same By affixing his signature in said document, heundertook to safeguard the lumber on behalf of the government.In the instant case, Arriola knowingly and willingly signed theseizure receipt for the confiscated articles. By affixing hissignature in said document, he undertook to safeguard the lumberon behalf of the Government. The receipt contains a provisionwhich states that as custodian, Arriola obliges himself tofaithfully keep and protect to the best of his ability the said seizedarticles from defacement in any manner, destruction or loss andthat he will never alter or remove said seized articles untilordered by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resourcesor his duly authorized representative or any court of Justice inthe Philippines.

Criminal Law Words and Phrases Accessories are those who,having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and withouthaving participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,take part subsequent to its commission by concealing or destroyingthe body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof, in orderto prevent its discovery.Article 19, par. 2 of the Revised Penal



Code defines accessories as those who, having knowledge of thecommission of the crime, and without having participated therein,either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to itscommission by concealing or destroying the body of the crime orthe effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent itsdiscovery.

Same Presumption of Innocence In all criminal cases, merespeculations cannot substitute for proof in establishing the guilt ofthe accused.In all criminal cases, mere speculations cannotsubstitute for proof in establishing the guilt of the accused. Whenguilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy oflong standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored,and exoneration granted as a matter of right.

Malversation Indeterminate Sentence Law The penalty formalversation is reclusion temporal in its medium and maximumperiods, if the amount involved is more than P12,000 but less thanP22,000 applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and therebeing

346

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the maximumimposable penalty shall be within the range of 16 years, 5 monthsand 11 days to 18 years, 5 months and 20 days, while theminimum shall be within the range of 10 years and 1 day to 14years and 8 months.According to Article 217, paragraph 4 of theRevised Penal Code, the penalty for malversation is reclusiontemporal in its medium and maximum periods, if the amountinvolved is more than P12,000 but less than P22,000. Applyingthe Indeterminate Sentence Law, and there being no mitigatingor aggravating circumstances, the maximum imposable penaltyshall be within the range of 16 years, 5 months and 11 days to 18years, 5 months and 20 days, while the minimum shall be withinthe range of 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. Thetrial court therefore properly imposed the penalty ofimprisonment to petitioner Arriola ranging from 14 years and 8months, as minimum, to 18 years, 2 months and 20 days, asmaximum.



SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Gerard Sy Montojo for petitioners.

YNARESSANTIAGO, J.:

For allegedly having lost the confiscated lumber entrustedto their custody, petitioners Barangay Captain HermosoArriola and Barangay Chief Tanod Melchor Radan ofDulangan, Magdiwang, Romblon were convicted asprincipal and accessory respectively by the Regional TrialCourt of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 of the crime ofMalversation of Public Property thru Negligence orAbandonment defined and penalized under Article 217 ofthe Revised Penal Code, in an Information

1 docketed as

Criminal Case No. 2064, which alleges

That on, about and during the first week of May, 1996, inbarangay Dulangan, municipality of Magdiwang, province ofRom

_______________

1 Sandiganbayan Records, p. 1.

347

VOL. 494, JUNE 30, 2006 347Arriola vs. Sandiganbayan

blon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this HonorableCourt, the said accused, being then a duly appointed/electedBarangay Captain and Chief Tanod of Dulangan, Magdiwang,Romblon and as such, they have under their custody and controlapproximately forty four (44) pieces of illegally sawn lumbers ofassorted sizes and species, with an estimated value of P17,611.20,Philippine currency, which were confiscated or recovered by theelements of the Philippine National Police and DENR personneland thereafter turned over the same to accused Brgy. Capt.Hermoso Arriola which he acknowledged to have received thesame and stockpiled at the backyard of accused Chief TanodMelchor Radans house, and through abandonment or negligence,they permitted any other person to take the public propertywholly or partially, to the damage and prejudice of the



government in the sum of P17,611.20.Contrary to law.

Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. Trial on themerits ensued thereafter. On May 3, 1998, the trial courtrendered its Decision,

2 the dispositive portion of which

reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds coaccused barangay captainHERMOSO ARRIOLA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt asprincipal of the crime of Malversation of Public Property ThruNegligence or Abandonment and he is hereby sentenced to notless than 14 years and 8 months, as minimum, to 18 years, 2months and 20 days, as maximum, with the accessories of thelaw, with the additional penalty of perpetual specialdisqualification and of a fine of P17,611.20, Philippine Currency,and to pay the sum of P13,209.20 as indemnification ofconsequential damages to the government.

Likewise, coaccused barangay chief tanod MELCHOR RADANis found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as accessory of thecrime of Malversation of Public Property Thru Negligence orAbandonment and he is sentenced to not less than 6 years, asminimum, to 8 years and 8 months, as maximum, with theaccessories of the law, with the additional penalty of perpetualspecial disqualification and of a fine of P4,402.80, PhilippineCurrency, and to pay the sum of P4,402.80 as indemnification ofconsequential damages to the government.

_______________

2 Rollo, pp. 4149. Penned by Judge Placido C. Marquez.

348


No subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine isimposed to both accused under Article 39, paragraph 3, RPC buteither accused is subsidiarily liable for the quota of either in theindemnity for consequential damages to the government (Art.110, RPC). Both accused shall pay the costs equally.

The accused are entitled to credit for preventive imprisonmentunder Article 29, RPC.

The accused are allowed to continue on provisional liberty



I.

under the same bail bonds during the period to appeal subject tothe consent of the bondsmen (Section 5, Rule 114 of the 1985Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.)

SO ORDERED.3

Petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Appealswhich referred the same to the public respondentSandiganbayan on a finding that the latter has jurisdictionover the case.

4 On June 29, 2004, the First Division of the

Sandiganbayan resolved5 thus

Notwithstanding the referral of this case to this Court by theCourt of Appeals, it appearing that no correction was made of thecorrect appellate court by the appellant, this Court is constrainedto DISMISS the instant case pursuant to Section 2, Rule 50 of the1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, stating insofar aspertinent, that (a)n appeal erroneously taken to the Court ofAppeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shallbe dismissed outright, and the ruling in the case of Moll vs.Buban, et al., G.R. No. 136974, 388 SCRA 63, promulgated onAugust 27, 2002, that the designation of the correct appellatecourt should be made within the 15day period to appeal.

_______________

3 Id., at p. 48.4 CA Resolution dated August 5, 2003, Sandiganbayan Records, pp.

252253. Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. andconcurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Arsenio J.Magpale.

5 Id., at p. 314.

349


Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied6 by the

Sandiganbayan hence, this petition for certiorari alleginggrave abuse of discretion of the Sandiganbayan indismissing their appeal. They maintain that the trial courtcommitted the following errors:

IN RULING THAT ACCUSEDAPPELLANTHERMOSO ARRIOLA IS AN ACCOUNTABLE



II.

III.

IV.

V.

PUBLIC OFFICER WITH RESPECT TOCONFISCATED ILLEGALLY LOGGED LUMBER,BY REASON OF THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE.IN RULING THAT ACCUSEDAPPELLANTHERMOSO ARRIOLA MISAPPROPRIATED ORCONSENTED OR, THROUGH NEGLIGENCE ORABANDONMENT, PERMITTED ANOTHERPERSON TO TAKE THE CONFISCATEDLUMBER.IN RULING THAT ACCUSEDAPPELLANTHERMOSO ARRIOLA MALICIOUSLY ORFRAUDULENTLY ATTEMPTED TO MAKE ITAPPEAR THAT THE MISSING LUMBER WEREFOUND AND RECOVED (sic).IN RULING THAT ACCUSEDAPPELLANTMELCHOR RADAN IS AN ACCESSORY AFTERTHE CRIME WHO SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE,TOGETHER WITH HIS COPETITIONER.IN RULING THAT THE GUILT OF BOTHACCUSEDAPPELLANTS WERE ESTABLISHEDBY EVIDENCE OF GUILT BEYONDREASONABLE DOUBT.

7

The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:At noon on April 22, 1996 Department of Environment

and Natural Resources (DENR) Forest Rangers EfrenMandia (Mandia) and Joepre Ferriol, Senior Inspector NoelAlonzo, the team leader of Task Force Kalikasan togetherwith the Chief of Police of Magdiwang, Romblon SPO3Agustin Ramal and some other police officers, confiscated44 pieces of illegally sawn lumber totaling 1,174 board feetwith an estimated value of P17,611.20.

8

_______________

6 Id., at p. 328.7 Rollo, pp. 78.8 Id., at p. 42.

350




Mandia scaled the lumber and made notches on most of thepieces before issuing the seizure receipt

9 and turning over

its custody to petitioner Arriola in the presence ofpetitioner Radan. Arriola acknowledged receipt thereof andsigned

10 accordingly. Mandia subsequently discovered the

lumber missing on May 5, 1996.11

He went back to Barangay Dulangan on May 14, 1996accompanied by several police officers and ForestersGerardo Sabigan and Glenn Tansiongco. They requestedpetitioners to turn over custody of the confiscated lumberbut the latter claimed that the same were taken awaywithout their knowledge. Subsequently, petitionersproduced lumber and claimed that these were the ones theyrecovered. Upon closer inspection however, Mandia notedthat the lumber produced by petitioners were differentfrom those previously confiscated.

The subsequent investigation conducted by Mandiatogether with Forester and OfficerinCharge GerardoSabigan, SPO1 Jose Fabrique, Jr., and some members ofthe MultiSectoral Forest Protection Committee showedthat the missing lumber was actually hauled to and used inthe Magdiwang Cockpit where petitioner Arriola is astockholder.

12

On June 10, 1996, a complaint was filed againstpetitioners before the Romblon Provincial ProsecutionOffice.

In his defense, Arriola asserts that contrary to thefinding of the trial court, he is not an accountable officerinsofar as the confiscated lumber is concerned. Hemaintains that none of the powers, duties and functions ofa Barangay Captain as enumerated in the LocalGovernment Code

13 (R.A. 7160) directly or by inference

suggests that as such Barangay Captain, he is anaccountable officer with respect to the custody of

_______________

9 Sandiganbayan Records, pp. 9194.10 Id., at p. 82.11 Rollo, p. 42.12 TSN, August 4, 1997, p. 44.13 Section 389, Chapter 3, Title One, Book III.

351




illegally sawn lumber confiscated within his territorialjurisdiction.

He insists that the confiscated lumber was placed in hiscustody not by reason of the duties of his office asBarangay Captain, thus he is not legally accountable toanswer for its loss so as to make him liable forMalversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code.Petitioners claim that they did not misappropriate,abandon or neglect the confiscated lumber and insist thatthe same were stolen. Arriola claims he visited thestockpiled lumber regularly so the theft probably occurredat night.

With respect to the replacement lumber theysubsequently produced, petitioners believed in good faiththat the various lumber found scattered in a nearby creekwere the missing confiscated lumber left by the thieves whofailed to transport them across.

Before going into the merits of the case, we must firstresolve the procedural issue of whether the Sandiganbayancorrectly dismissed the appeal. The Sandiganbayananchored its dismissal on this Courts pronouncement inMoll v. Buban

14 that the designation of the wrong court

does not necessarily affect the validity of the notice ofappeal. However, the designation of the proper courtshould be made within the 15day period to appeal. Oncemade within the said period, the designation of the correctappellate court may be allowed even if the records of thecase are forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Otherwise,Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court would apply, therelevant portion of which states:

Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.x x x x

_______________

14 G.R. No. 136974, August 27, 2002, 388 SCRA 63, 70.

352




An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not betransferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissedoutright.

In this case, the records had been forwarded to the Court ofAppeals which endorsed petitioners appeal to theSandiganbayan. However, petitioners failed to designatethe proper appellate court within the allowable time.

We cannot fault the Sandiganbayan for dismissing theappeal outright for it was merely applying the law andexisting jurisprudence on the matter. Appeal is not avested right but a mere statutory privilege thus, appealmust be made strictly in accordance with provisions set bylaw.

15 Section 2, Rule 50 clearly requires that the correction

in designating the proper appellate court should be madewithin the 15day period to appeal.

However, the rules of procedure ought not to be appliedin a very rigid, technical sense for they have been adoptedto help securenot overridesubstantial justice.

16 This

Court has repeatedly stressed that the ends of justicewould be served better when cases are determined, not onmere technicality or some procedural nicety, but on themeritsafter all the parties are given full opportunity toventilate their causes and defenses. Lest it be forgotten,dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frownedupon.

17

Having resolved the procedural issue, we shall nowproceed to the merits of the case. The issue boils down towhether or not petitioners Arriola and Radan areaccountable officers within the purview of Article 217 of theRevised Penal Code in relation to the confiscated items.

_______________

15 Alfonso v. Andres, G.R. No. 139611, October 4, 2002, 390 SCRA 465,470.

16 Remulla v. Manlongat, G.R. No. 148189, November 11, 2004, 442SCRA 226, 236.

17 Id.

353




a.]b.]

c.]

d.]

To find an accused guilty of malversation, the prosecutionmust prove the following essential elements:

The offender is a public officerHe has the custody or control of funds or propertyby reason of the duties of his officeThe funds or property involved are public funds orproperty for which he is accountable andHe has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, orhas consented to, or through abandonment ornegligence, permitted the taking by another personof, such funds or property.

An accountable officer under Article 217 is a public officerwho, by reason of his office is accountable for public fundsor property. Sec. 101 (1) of the Government Auditing Codeof the Philippines (PD No. 1455) defines accountable officerto be every officer of any government agency whose dutiespermit or require the possession or custody of governmentfunds or property and who shall be accountable thereforand for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law.

18

In the determination of who is an accountable officer, itis the nature of the duties which he performsand not thenomenclature or the relative importance the position heldwhich is the controlling factor.

19

Is petitioner Arriola, who signed as custodian in theseizure receipt for the confiscated lumber an accountableofficer with respect to its loss?

Chapter IV, IE, (4) of the DENR Primer on IllegalLogging states that:

In cases where the apprehension is made by the field DENRofficer, the forest products and the conveyance used shall bedeposited to the nearest CENRO/PENRO/RED office, as the casemay be,

_______________

18 Querijero v. People, G.R. No. 153483, February 14, 2003, 397 SCRA 465, 473.19 Id., at pp. 473474.

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED




for safekeeping, wherever it is most convenient. If the transfer ofthe seized forest products to the above places is not immediatelyfeasible, the same shall be placed under the custody of anylicensed sawmill operator or the nearest local public official suchas the Barangay Captain, Municipal/City Mayor, ProvincialGovernor or the PC/INP at the discretion of the confiscatingofficer taking into account the safety of the confiscated forestproducts x x x. In any case, the custody of the forest productsshall be duly acknowledged and receipted by the official takingcustody thereof.

In the case of United States v. Lafuente,20 the accused was a

Municipal Secretary and a member of the auctioncommittee. A public auction for the sale of fisheryprivileges was held pursuant to the provisions of theMunicipal Law and a municipal ordinance. When theauction was concluded, the bidders deposited the amount oftheir respective bids with the accused. The latterembezzled the money for his personal use. It was held thatthe accused is guilty of misappropriation of public funds.Although a Municipal Secretarys duties do not normallyinclude the receipt of public funds, the accused in this casewas nonetheless held accountable for the same because themoney was deposited with him under authority of law. Theobligation of the secretary was to safeguard the money forthe Government.

21

In the instant case, Arriola knowingly and willinglysigned the seizure receipt for the confiscated articles. Byaffixing his signature in said document, he undertook tosafeguard the lumber on behalf of the Government. Thereceipt contains a provision which states that as custodian,Arriola obliges himself to faithfully keep and protect to thebest of his ability the said seized articles from defacementin any manner, destruction or loss and that he will neveralter or remove said seized articles until ordered by theSecretary of Environment

_______________

20 37 Phil. 671 (1918).21 See The Revised Penal Code, Book II, Luis B. Reyes, 14th Edition,

1998, p. 407.

355




and Natural Resources or his duly authorizedrepresentative or any court of Justice in the Philippines.

Although his usual duties as Barangay Captain do notordinarily include the receipt of confiscated articles onbehalf of the Government, by virtue of the DENR Primeron Illegal Logging, which had for its basis Section 68 ofPresidential Decree No. 705,

22 he may be called on to take

custody thereof as the need arises. Furthermore, byaffixing his signature in the seizure receipt which clearlyenumerates his obligations as a custodian therein, heeffectively becomes an accountable officer therefor.

The records show that prior to its confiscation by theDENR officers on April 22, 1996, the lumber waspreviously apprehended by Arriola on April 19, 1996.

23

Thus, even without the seizure receipt where he signed ascustodian for the said lumber, Arriola was accountabletherefor because he was the one who originally tookpossession of it on behalf of the government.

His claim that the trial court erred in holding him liablefor malversation through negligence or abandonment lacksmerit. The lumber curiously turned up at the Magdiwangcockpit structure where he happens to be a stockholder.Also, Arriola admitted that he already knew about themissing lumber long before the DENR officers came back toget it but he did not inform them about its loss becausesomebody advised me not to report because the one whogot the lumber might panic and tuluyan na ang lumber.

24

He even produced 44 pieces of lumber and passed it offas those missing. The evidence showed however that thespecies was of a cheaper quality and did not bear themarkings made by the apprehending officers of the DENR.All told, his alibi and denials cannot prevail over thecredible testimonies of

_______________

22 The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines.23 TSN, November 11, 1997, pp. 34 TSN, August 4, 1997, p. 31.24 TSN, November 11, 1997, p. 14.

356




government witnesses which corroborated each other. Hisdefenses did not withstand the onslaught of clear andobvious physical, documentary and testimonial evidenceadduced by the prosecution.

With respect to petitioner Radan, the trial court erred injudging him liable as an accessory.

Article 19, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code definesaccessories as those who, having knowledge of thecommission of the crime, and without having participatedtherein, either as principals or accomplices, take partsubsequent to its commission by concealing or destroyingthe body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof,in order to prevent its discovery.

In the case at bar, the evidence adduced by theprosecution to prove Radans liability as an accessory wereneither clear nor convincing. His presence during the timewhen the DENR officers turned over the custody of theseized items to Arriola is not enough proof of complicity,nor the fact that the confiscated lumber was placed behindhis fathers house. The assertion that he was responsiblefor the alleged transport of the confiscated articles to thecockpit in Dulangan was a mere conjecture.

In all criminal cases, mere speculations cannotsubstitute for proof in establishing the guilt of theaccused.

25 When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it

has been our policy of long standing that the presumptionof innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as amatter of right.

26

We now come to the penalty which should be imposed onpetitioner Arriola. According to Article 217, paragraph 4 ofthe Revised Penal Code, the penalty for malversation isreclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods, ifthe

_______________

25 Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 138503, September 28, 2000, 341SCRA 277, 299.

26 Monteverde v. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002, 387 SCRA196, 215.

357




amount involved is more than P12,000 but less thanP22,000. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, andthere being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances,the maximum imposable penalty shall be within the rangeof 16 years, 5 months and 11 days to 18 years, 5 monthsand 20 days, while the minimum shall be within the rangeof 10 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The trialcourt therefore properly imposed the penalty ofimprisonment to petitioner Arriola ranging from 14 yearsand 8 months, as minimum, to 18 years, 2 months and 20days, as maximum.

Under the second paragraph of Art. 217, persons guiltyof malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetualspecial disqualification and a fine equal to the amount offunds malversed or equal to the total value of the propertyembezzled, which in this case is P17,611.20. There will beno subsidiary imprisonment because the principal penaltyimposed is higher than prision correccional.

27

WHEREFORE, the May 3, 1998 Decision of the RegionalTrial Court of Romblon, Romblon, Branch 81 in CriminalCase No. 2064 finding petitioner Hermoso Arriola guilty ofMalversation of Public Property thru Negligence orAbandonment and sentencing him to suffer the penalty ofimprisonment to not less than 14 years and 8 months, asminimum, to 18 years, 2 months and 20 days, as maximum,with the accessories of the law, with the additional penaltyof perpetual special disqualification and a fine ofP17,611.20 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in thatthe imposition of consequential damages on petitionerHermoso Arriola is ordered DELETED for lack of legalbasis. Petitioner Melchor Radan is ACQUITTED forinsufficiency of evidence.

SO ORDERED.

AustriaMartinez, Callejo, Sr. and ChicoNazario,JJ., concur.

_______________

27 Art. 39, par. 3, RPC.

358



358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDPhilippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Aladdin Transit Corp.

Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), On Official Leave.

Judgment affirmed with modifications.

Notes.Dismissal of an appeal on purely technicalgrounds is frowned upon since our general policy is toencourage hearings of appeals exceptions. (Samala vs.Court of Appeals, 423 SCRA 142 [2004])

The right to perfect an appeal is not part of due processof law but is a mere statutory privilege to be exercised inthe manner and in accordance with the provisions of thelaw. (Zaragoza vs. Nobleza, 428 SCRA 410 [2004])

o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

Documents

Arriola vs. Sandiganbayan