School head’s conviction for graft raps ruled final

The Supreme Court has ruled that the conviction for graft charges of the superintendent of the Cebu State College of Arts and Technology-Moalboal College of Fisheries is already final and executory.

Andres Melencion was convicted in 1998 by a Cebu-based Regional Trial Court for violating the provisions of Republic Act 3019 or the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

Thirteen public school teachers complained against Melencion after they failed to receive the increase of their salaries because the latter withheld the information that they had been promoted.

The complainants were secondary school teachers Olympia Geraldino, Visitacion Gocotano, Elvira Joyohoy, Hideliza Tabanao, Angelito Pableo, Frisco Canumay, Lucia Gako, Vivencia Evelyn Lauron, Zenaida Mantos, Emma Pableo, Zosimo Villalino, Primitivo Kimeno, Melecisima de los Angeles and librarian Cirila  Sabanal.

They claimed that Melencion deliberately withheld and failed to inform or furnish them of their respective appointments promoting them to salary grade 58 from salary grade 56.

Then RTC Branch 60 judge Ildefonso Suerte found Melencion guilty for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in 1998.

Aside from the jail penalty, the court also ordered that Melencion be meted the penalty of lifetime disqualification from holding of a public office, meaning he will be dismissed from the service.

Melencion was also ordered to pay the complaining teachers of the P91,374 intended for them, plus P49,341 equivalent to 12 per cent interest per annum from 1985 to 1989.

The school official appealed the case but filed his appeal with the Court of Appeals instead of with the anti-graft court.

The appellate court on May 30, 2001 declared that it had no jurisdiction to act on the appealed case and ordered that it will be referred to the Sandiganbayan. 

But the Sandiganbayan ruled not to admit the case, saying that the rule is that “An appeal erroneously taken to the Court of Appeals shall not be transferred to the appropriate court but shall be dismissed outright.”

The Sandiganbayan gave the Court of Appeals the opportunity to rectify its error in transferring the case to the Sandiganbayan instead of dismissing the case outright.

This prompted Melencion to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed a grave error in issuing its resolution to transfer Melencion’s case to the Sandiganbayan.  

According to the Supreme Court that because of Melencion’s error in appealing the case to the wrong venue, his 15 day period to file an appeal had already lapsed making the trial court’s judgment of his case final and executory.  — Rene U. Borromeo/BRP