Mañago, Miguel Luisito G. Mañago
RICARDO L. ATIENZA AND ALFREDO A. CASTRO v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 188694, 12 Febraury 2014, Second Division, PerlasBernabe, J.
FACTS:
1. Atienza and Castro, employees of the Court of Appeals,
assigned to its Budget Division holding the positions of Budget
Officer I and Utility Worker I, respectively.
2. On March 20, 1995, Juanito Atibula, Records Officer I and
Custodian of the CA Original Decisions in the CA Reporter’s
Divison, was invited to Atienza’s birthday party to which Atienza
introduced and had asked to assist a certain Dario in searching
for the CA decision in the case “Mateo Fernando v Heirs of D.
Tuason Inc. Thereafter Atibula found the decision in Volume
260 of the CA Original Decisions. Atibula had noticed Dario
comparing the discolored pages he was holding to the pages of
Vol. 260 of the CA Original Decisions as well as Volumes 265
and 267 to which he placed check marks on the papers he was
holding.
3. On March 20, 1995, Juanito Atibula, Records Officer I and
Custodian of the CA Original Decisions in the CA Reporter’s
Divison, was invited to Atienza’s birthday party to which Atienza
introduced and had asked to assist a certain Dario in searching
for the CA decision in the case “Mateo Fernando v Heirs of D.
Tuason Inc. Thereafter Atibula found the decision in Volume
260 of the CA Original Decisions. Atibula had noticed Dario
comparing the discolored pages he was holding to the pages of
Vol. 260 of the CA Original Decisions as well as Volumes 265
and 267 to which he placed check marks on the papers he was
holding.
4. On May 9, 1995, Atibula discovered Vol. 266 was missing and
reported again to Atty. Macapagal, and on May 18, 1995,
Nelson de Castro, Clerk IV, handed to Atibula a bag containing
a gift-wrapped packaged which was actually the missing vol.
266. Castro claiming it was Castro who asked him to deliver it
to Atibula. He then reported the matter to Atty. Macapagal and
had then compared the contents of the returned 266 with the
index of decisions to which he noticed two new documents
were inserted. Atibula reported to Atty. Macapagal and later on
Atty. Tablate who then reported the incident to then CA
Presiding Justice Nathanel P. De Pano, Jr. who requested the
NBI to conduct an investigation on the matter. When verifying
the genuiness of the promulgations, they found out the
following:
1
a. Volume 266 was indeed altered
b. The signatures of the CA justices in the resolution and
decision and their sample signature were not written by
one and the same person and were suspected to be
forgeries.
5. After an ocular inspection of the premises, they then discovered
the means of access to the office of the CA Reporter’s Division,
which was through a hole behind the AC Unit of the right most
end from the main door. The NBI investigation also yielded that
there was conspiracy to commit the crime of Falsification of
Public Documents between Atienza and Dario and Castro
assisted Atienza and Dario to profit from the effects of the crime
by returning safely the missing Volume to the CA Reporter’s
Division.
6. Atienza and Castro were initially charged with Falsification of
Public Documents, in violation of RA 3019, and RA 6713,
However the charges for violation of RA 3019 and RA 6713
were dropped, but there was probable cause to charge the
three with robbery under art 299 and falsification of public
documents under art 172(1) in relation to art 171(6). The RTC
rendered a decision on June 8, 2008 finding petitioners guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of Robbery under Art.
299 and Falsification of Public Document under Art. 172(1) in
relation to Art. 171(6) of the RPC. Petitioners filed an appeal to
the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s judgment to which they filed a
motion for reconsideration, which was also denied, thus filed an
instant petition before the court.
ISSUES:
I.
Whether the issue of Jurisdiction can be belatedly raised?
SUPREME COURT’S RULING:
I.
Jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings.
a. The RTC had no jurisdiction over the case. According to
BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, Falsification of Public
Document under Art 172 of the RPC, punishable by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
and a fine of not more than P5,000.00, falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
b. Though the petitioners raised the jurisdictional issue for
the first time on appeal, they are not prevented from
questioning the same. Jurisdiction is only granted by the
Constitution or the law and cannot be acquired through a
waiver or enlarged by the omission of the parties, or
conferred by the acquiesence of the court. It is well
established that the lack of jurisdiction over the subject
2
matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Hence, questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if
raised for the first time on appeal.
3