7/26/2019 Limpangog vs. CA-

1/3

[G.R. No. 134229.November 26, 1999]LITO LIMPANGOG and JRR! LIMPANGOG,petitioners, vs. "O#RT O$ APPAL%and POPL O$ T& P&ILIPPIN%, respondents.

$A"T%'

Herein petitioners LitoLimpangog and Jerry Limpangogwere adjudged by the RTC

of Ormoc City guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and two Frustrated

Murderimposing upon them the sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of

T! "#$% years of prision mayor& as minimum& to '(!T! "#)% *+R' of reclusion

temporal& as ma,imum and T! "#$% years of prision mayor& as minimum& to

'(!T! "#)% years of reclusion temporal& as ma,imum in the two cases of

Frustrated Murder and RCL-'.O! /R/T-+ in the Murder case0

/etitioners then ele1ated the decision to the Court of +ppeals0

The C+ declared itself to ha1e no jurisdiction o1er petitioners appeal of their murder

conviction, where the sentence imposed is reclusion perpetua& the appeal falls within

the e,clusi1e jurisdiction of the 'upreme Court0 Citing 'C Circular 234$& the C+ refused

to forward the appeal to the 'upreme Court5 instead& it dismissed the case0The

appellate court& howe1er& ga1e due course to the appeal insofar as it related to the

con1ictions for frustrated murder0The C+ rendered the assailed 6ecision ac7uitting

petitioners of frustrated murder& but dismissing the appeal in the murder indictment

Thus& this /etition for Re1iew under Rule 89 assailing the 6ecision of C+0

I%%#'

:HTHR OR !OT TH 6.'M.''+L OF TH +//+L .! TH CR.M.!+L C+' FOR

M-R6R ;:+'< /RO/R=(+L.6 -!6R TH C.RC-M'T+!C

R#LING'

+s a rule& this Court re1iews only the specific issues or errors raised by the parties0

Howe1er& 7uestions in1ol1ing jurisdiction may be ta>en up moto proprioby the

Courte1en when not specifically assigned as errors by the parties& inasmuch as theydel1e into the 1ery essence of decision3ma>ing0 .n 1iew of the peculiar facts of this case&

we belie1e that the issue to be resol1ed is whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction

over petitioners' appeal.

The Court of +ppeals did not ha1e jurisdiction o1er petitioners appeal5 hence& the

challenged 6ecision is null and 1oid0

7/26/2019 Limpangog vs. CA-

2/3

The three crimes for which herein petitioners were con1icted of were committed on

the same occasion and arose from the same facts0 .n this light& the C+ did not ha1e

jurisdiction o1er the appeals filed by herein petitioners0 'ection 4 "?% of the judiciary

Reorgani@ation +ct of #4A$ "B/ Blg0 #24% states that the C+ has e,clusi1e appellate

jurisdiction o1er all final judgments& decisions& resolutions& orders& or awards of regional

trial courts except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in

accordance with the Constitution, the provisions of BP Blg. 1!, and of the judiciar" Act

of 1!#$.

Lea1ing no doubt that the C+ had no jurisdiction o1er the two cases for frustrated

murder& 'ection #) "#% of the judiciary +ct of #48A pro1ides as follows

'ection #)0Jurisdiction of the 'upreme Court0The 'upreme Court shall ha1ee,clusi1e jurisdictionto re1iew& re1ise& re1erse& modify or affirmon appeal& as the law or rules of court may pro1ide& final judgments and decrees of inferior

courts as herein pro1ided& in 3"#%+ll criminal cases in1ol1ing offenses for which the penalty imposed is life imprisonment5 andthose in1ol1ing offenses which& although not so punished&arose out of the same occurrence orwhich may ha1e been committed by the accused on the same occasion as that gi1ing rise to themore serious offense& regardless of whether the accused are charged as principals&accomplices or accessories& or whether they ha1e been tried jointly or separately5 ,,, ".talics

supplied0%".talics supplied%

The foregoing is also echoed by 'ection ? "c%& Rule #22 of the Rules of Court0

.n 1iew of the abo1e pro1isions& it is clear that the Court of +ppeals has no

jurisdiction o1er an appeal of a trial court judgment imposing an indeterminate sentence&if the same ruling also imposes reclusion perpetua& life imprisonment or death for crimes

arising out of the same facts0 The 'upreme Court has e,clusi1e jurisdiction o1er such

appeals0 The splitting of appeals is not conduci1e to the orderly administration of justice

and in1ites possible conflict of dispositions between the re1iewing courts0

.n all& the Court of +ppeals acted without jurisdiction in resol1ing the appeal of the

con1iction for frustrated murder and dismissing the murder case0 Hence& the C+s

ac7uittal of the petitioners on charges of frustrated murder is 1oid0 :e hasten to add

that& with the 1oiding of the C+ 6ecision and the re1iew by this Court of the RTC

judgment& petitioners cannot claim double jeopardy& because they were ne1er legally in

danger of con1iction by the Court of +ppeals0

True& Circular !o0 234$ issued by this Court authori@ed the dismissal of appeals

erroneously filed before the wrong court0 Howe1er& in numerous similarly circumstantial

criminal cases&

7/26/2019 Limpangog vs. CA-

3/3

to this Court& in the greater interest of substantial justice0 This we li>ewise do in the

instant case0

(&R$OR& the petition is PA%&A(() *%A+&-0 The challenged 6ecision of

the Court of +ppeals is hereby declared +((and /0-0