Consider the following situation:
The accused was convicted of a crime by the RTC. The accused appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals by filing a notice of appeal. His appeal raises only questions of law. May the CA dismiss the appeal for being improper?
Many will answer in the affirmative, reasoning that the appeal should have been taken to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This is pursuant to Section 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which provides that “[i]n all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.”
However, the answer, based on prevailing case law, is that the CA may not dismiss the appeal for being improper. This is pursuant to the holding of the Supreme Court en banc in Tan v. People, 381 SCRA 74 (2002). The Supreme Court held therein that an appeal on pure questions of law from a judgment of the RTC in a criminal case may be taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a notice of appeal.
The Court based its holding on Section 3(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure which states that “the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be by notice of appeal.” The Court added that “[n]either the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the power to hear cases on appeal in which only an error of law is involved.” In effect, the Court provided for concurrent appellate jurisdiction between the CA and SC over appeals from criminal cases which raise only questions of law.
The nearly two-decade old holding of Tan however deserves an earnest re-examination. I believe that an appeal on pure questions of law from an RTC judgment in a criminal case (whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction) may be taken only to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari. The Court in Tan overlooked that while neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal Procedure exclusively vests in the Supreme Court the power to hear cases on appeal involving pure questions of law, there is a statute which does. This, as pointed out by Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in his dissenting opinion, is the Judiciary Act of 1948 which provides in Section 17 that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in which only errors or questions of law are involved. Justice Mendoza pointed out that Section 3(a) of Rule 122 cannot modify the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1948 since “it is conventional learning that procedural rules cannot amend or change substantive laws.” As mandated by the Constitution, procedural rules “shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.” (Sec. 5[5], Article VIII).
-oOo-
