See -
In The Notice Of Appeal It Is Not Even Required That The Appellant Indicate The Court To Which Its Appeal Is Being Interposed…
(THE LAWYER'S POST)
"x x x.
In a Notice of Appeal, must the accused indicate with particularity the court to which he or she is appealing her conviction in a criminal case?
No. The Supreme Court ratiocinated thus:
“Petitioner did not even have to specify the court to which her appeal was to be taken. In Heirs of Pizarro v. Consolacion, we held:
It must be noted that in the notice of appeal it is not even required that the appellant indicate the court to which its appeal is being interposed. This requirement is merely directory and failure to comply with it or error in the court indicated is not fatal to the appeal. (Emphasis ours).
Moreover, it appears that petitioner’s failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent. The omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had more to lose had that been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction – which was exactly what happened in the CA.
The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records of the case to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. It is unfortunate that the RTC judge concerned ordered the pertinent records to be forwarded to the wrong court, to the great prejudice of petitioner. Cases involving government employees with a salary grade lower than 27 are fairly common, albeit regrettably so. The judge was expected to know and should have known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals are to be taken to the CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. He should have conscientiously and carefully observed this responsibility specially in cases such as this where a person’s liberty was at stake.”"
See -
