6/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Q-98-77301, Cesar Aquino, private complainant in Criminal Case No. Q-9877302 and Junior Agustin, private complainant in Criminal Case No. Q-9877303 were also the private complainant in the illegal recruitment in a large scale suit, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-98-77300. As gleaned from the charges, the estafa cases were intimately related to or arose from the facts and occurrences of the alleged illegal recruitment. Clearly, we have no recourse but to refuse cognizance over the estafa cases as well.[35] Despite its lack of jurisdiction over Ochoa's appeal, the Court of Appeals did not dismiss the same and merely ordered its transfer to us: While the Supreme Court Circular No. 2-90 directs the dismissal of appeals filed before the wrong court, the Supreme Court has in practice allowed the transfer of records from this Court to the highest court. In which case, we shall subscribe to this practice in the interest of substantial justice. WHEREFORE, premises considered, our decision is declared NULL and VOID. We order the TRANSFER of the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 9877300 to 98-77303 to the Supreme Court for proper action.[36] In the Resolution[37] dated September 17, 2003, we accepted Ochoa's appeal and informed both Ochoa and the OSG to file their respective additional briefs. Ochoa's appeal was then docketed as G.R. No. 159252. On August 17, 2004, Ochoa's counsel filed an explanation stating that he had nothing more to add since he had already written and filed all necessary pleadings, complete with all the necessary research and arguments.[38] In the meantime, People v. Mateo[39] was promulgated on July 7, 2004, where we held that an appeal from the decisions of the RTC, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, should be made to the Court of Appeals. Thus, in our Resolution[40] dated March 11, 2005, the Court ordered the transfer of the records of G.R. No. 159252 to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the merit. We likewise directed the Court of Appeals to raffle the said case to any of its regular divisions. When Ochoa's appeal was before the Court of Appeals a second time, it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00888. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated March 2, 2006, affirmed with modification the RTC Decision dated April 17, 2000. The appellate court essentially affirmed the findings of fact and law of the RTC, but reduced the award of damages in Criminal Case No. 98-77301 and increased the prison sentence in Criminal Case No. 98-77303. The decretal portion of said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/26427 10/23