JOEL PANCHO BIGCAS, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 265579
- Promulgated: 2024-11-26
- Ponente: LAZARO-JAVIER, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Joel Pancho Bigcas (Bigcas), a barangay kagawad and chair of the Council of Environment and Natural Resources, was charged with violating Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019. Lorlene Gonzales (Lorlene) applied for an earth moving permit and needed a Sangguniang Barangay resolution. Bigcas approached Lorlene, volunteered to verify information at City Hall, and requested PHP 200.00 for fare to expedite her application, which Lorlene provided. Lorlene's application was later denied because Bigcas found that the area was a watershed and unsuitable for quarrying. Lorlene filed a complaint when she learned that requesting money was not a barangay practice and when Bigcas tried to return the PHP 200.00 as payment for a "loan." The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Bigcas. Bigcas filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA initially required an appeal brief, then affirmed the conviction, but later dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction. The CA subsequently noted without action Bigcas's motion for reconsideration and informed him of an entry of judgment. Bigcas filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion and seeking the resolution of his appeal on the merits. ## Issues 1. Is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy against the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals? 2. Are there sufficient grounds to relax the rules of procedure in this case to serve the higher interest of justice? 3. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding Bigcas's conviction for violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** **A special civil action for certiorari is a proper remedy against the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals.** The Court held that while a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is generally the proper remedy against final orders of the CA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is appropriate when the CA's dispositions are challenged on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Bigcas alleged that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by not considering the peculiar circumstances that would warrant referral to the proper court. **Issue 2:** **The peculiar circumstances of the case warrant the relaxation of the rules of procedure.** The Court found that Bigcas demonstrated good faith in his attempt to appeal, despite his counsel's error in designating the CA as the appellate court. This error was compounded by the trial court's failure to transmit the records to the **Sandiganbayan**, the proper appellate court for offenses under **Republic Act No. 3019**. Citing **Ulep v. People** and **Sideño v. People**, the Court reiterated that the blunders of counsel and the trial court should not prejudice the liberty of the accused. The Court also cited **Cariaga v. People** and **Arriola v. Sandiganbayan**, which allowed for the relaxation of procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, particularly in criminal cases where liberty is at stake or where a counsel's negligence is gross. Given that the case had been pending for over 10 years, the Court opted to resolve the case on the merits to promote judicial economy and prevent further delay, citing **Mascariñas v. BPI Family Savings Bank**. **Issue 3:** **Bigcas is acquitted of violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019 because the elements of the crime were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.** The Court examined the elements of Section 3(c) of **Republic Act No. 3019**: 1. **Offender is a public officer:** This element was undisputed as Bigcas was a barangay kagawad. 2. **Secured or obtained, or would secure or obtain, for a person any government permit or license:** The Court found this element lacking. Bigcas did not commit to securing Lorlene's permit;…
Keywords
Rule 65 Rules of Court, Republic Act No. 3019 Section 3(c), Republic Act No. 10660, Presidential Decree No. 1606, Rule 45 Rules of Court, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Negligence of Counsel, Relaxation of Procedural Rules, Ends of Justice, Speedy Disposition of Cases, Criminal Case, Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals, Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan, Erroneous Appeal Filing, Certiorari, Notice of Appeal, Lack of Jurisdiction, Acquittal, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt