The rules governing an appeal from a judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan are found in Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606, Rule XI of the 2018 Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan (RIRS),1 and the Rules of Court.
Civil Cases
An appeal from a judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan in a civil case is taken by filing with the Supreme Court a petition for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.2 This is regardless of whether the judgment or final order was rendered in the exercise of the Sandiganbayan’s original or appellate jurisdiction. The petition shall be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or of the denial of the petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration. The Supreme Court may for justifiable reasons grant a 30-day extension. The petition shall raise only questions of law.3
Appeals from judgments or final orders in writ of amparo and writ of habeas data cases shall also be by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The appeal period is however a shorter 5 working days from notice of the judgment or final order and the appeal may raise questions of fact.4
Criminal Cases
Insofar as criminal cases are concerned, the RIRS draw a distinction between a judgment or final order rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction and one rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
A judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan in a criminal case rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is appealable to the Supreme Court by filing a notice of appeal with the Sandiganbayan.5 This rule applies even if the judgment did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.6 The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Sandiganbayan within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or for new trial.
On the other hand, a judgment or final order of the Sandiganbayan in a criminal case rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction is appealable to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.7
What if the judgment on appeal of the Sandiganbayan imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment? What is the mode of appeal to the Supreme Court?
For instance, an accused is convicted by the RTC of plunder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He appeals to the Sandiganbayan which renders judgment affirming the conviction and sentence. What is the proper mode of appeal to the Supreme Court? Is it a notice of appeal or a petition for review on certiorari? The correct choice is critical because an error in the choice or mode of appeal is a ground for dismissal of the appeal.8
Even though the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan was reclusion perpetua, the proper mode of appeal is a petition for review on certiorari. The second paragraph of Section 1(a), Rule XI does not distinguish between a judgment which imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and one which does not. In fine, in determining the mode of appeal, the penalty imposed does not matter. What counts is whether the Sandiganbayan judgment was rendered in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction.
It is true that Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 provides that “in any case decided by the Sandiganbayan [where] the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death is imposed, the decision shall be appealable to the Supreme Court in the manner prescribed in the Rules of Court.” In turn, Section 3, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court states that “[a]n appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.” It thus appears that under P.D. No. 1606, the appeal from a Sandiganbayan judgment imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is by a notice of appeal irrespective of whether the judgment was rendered in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction.
However, there is really no conflict between Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 and the RIRS. “Rules of Court” in Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 should be read as incorporating Supreme Court issuances amending or modifying the Rules of Court. Insofar as appeals from the Sandiganbayan are concerned, it is the RIRS, being the special rule, which prevails over the Rules of Court.
Even granting arguendo that there is a conflict between P.D. No. 1606 and the RIRS, it is the latter which is controlling. The mode and manner of taking appeals is a procedural matter embraced within the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making authority under the Constitution. Hence, it is the RIRS, a procedural rule promulgated under the aegis of the Supreme Court, which prevails over P.D. No. 1606.9
-oOo-
- Effective 16 November 2018. The RIRS were approved by the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB. ↩︎
- First paragraph of Section 1(a), Rule XI, RIRS. ↩︎
- Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 45, Rules of Court. ↩︎
- Section 25, Rule on the Writ of Amparo; Section 24, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data. ↩︎
- First paragraph of Section 1(a), Rule XI, RIRS. ↩︎
- Tidalgo v. People, 13 February 2023, Singh, J. ↩︎
- Second paragraph of Section 1(a), Rule XI, RIRS. ↩︎
- Section 5(f), Rule 56, Rules of Court in relation to Section 1, Rule 125, Rules of Court. ↩︎
- People v. Talaue, 12 January 2021, Peralta, C.J. ↩︎
Featured Image: Sandiganbayan, @SandiganbayanOfficial, Image, Facebook, June 8, 2023, available at https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=146690745081580&set=a.146690741748247 (last accessed Sep. 4, 2025).
