Asistio vs. People

The Regional Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions for violation of Section 46 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code) because the penalty prescribed is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years under Section 124(3) thereof, the reference therein to "Section 47" being a clerical error that should properly read "Section 46."

Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino served as Chairperson and Managing Director of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. During her tenure, she allegedly entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. for the sale of soft drink products at the school in her personal capacity, when such sales should have accrued to the Cooperative. An audit committee created by the school principal discovered that petitioner failed to remit sales profits totaling over P100,000.00 to the Cooperative over three school years. Despite demands for restitution, petitioner refused to return the amounts, prompting the Cooperative to authorize the filing of criminal charges against her for violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code.

• Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino served as Chairperson and Managing Director of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative
• She entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. for the sale of soft drink products at A. Mabini Elementary School in her personal capacity, not on behalf of the Cooperative
• School principal Dr. Nora T. Salamanca directed petitioner to submit financial reports during her tenure
• Petitioner refused to submit the reports, claiming the principal lacked authority and asserting that the reports had been posted on the school bulletin board
• An audit committee was created composed of Aurora Catabona (Chairperson), Monica Nealiga (member), Noemi Olazo (Chairperson-auditor), and Sylvia Apostol (auditor)
• Based on documents obtained from Coca-Cola, including records of actual deliveries and sales, and financial statements prepared by petitioner, the committee found petitioner defrauded the Cooperative of P54,008.00 (School Year 1998-1999), P40,503.00 (School Year 1999-2000), and P8,945.00 (School Year 2000-2001)
• Petitioner failed to return the misappropriated amounts despite requests from the Cooperative
• The Cooperative issued a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of criminal charges against petitioner
• The Information alleged that petitioner willfully acquired personal interest or equity adverse to the Cooperative by entering into the contract with Coca-Cola in her personal capacity, knowing fully well that the sales profits should have accrued to the Cooperative

• The Court of Appeals gravely erred in disregarding the clear, unambiguous provision of Section 124(4) of RA 6938 (penalty of 6 months to 1 year) and instead adopting a statutory construction that subjects her to the higher penalty of 5 to 10 years under Section 124(3)
• The Court of Appeals ignored the violation of the rule on primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies, as conciliation/mediation under the Cooperative Code and Cooperative by-laws was not availed of before filing the criminal case
• The Court of Appeals' order remanding the case to the RTC ignored the rule that dismissal of a charge on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal which is final and unappealable
• Remanding the case subjects petitioner to double jeopardy and exposes her to a higher penalty
• Application of the new Cooperative Code (Republic Act No. 9520) would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws

• The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper; the proper remedy is appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 since only questions of law are raised
• The RTC has jurisdiction because violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 is penalized under Section 124(3) with imprisonment of 5 to 10 years; the reference to "Section 47" in Section 124(3) is a clerical error that should properly read "Section 46"
• The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply because the case is not an intra-cooperative dispute (between members) but a dispute between the Cooperative and its former officer
• The dismissal on demurrer to evidence was based on lack of jurisdiction, not on the merits, and therefore does not constitute an acquittal and is appealable
• Double jeopardy does not attach because the dismissal was granted upon petitioner's express consent by filing a demurrer to evidence

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals decision, or should have been filed under Rule 45
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction over the criminal case for violation of Section 46 of RA 6938
  • Whether the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal that is final and unappealable
  • Whether remanding the case to the RTC violates the petitioner's right against double jeopardy
  • Whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies (conciliation/mediation) prior to filing the criminal case deprives the court of jurisdiction
  • Whether the prior acquittal of the petitioner in a separate case for falsification of private documents bars the present prosecution under the principle of double jeopardy or res judicata

• Procedural:
  • The proper remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, because the assailed decision is a judgment of the Court of Appeals in a criminal case and the petition raises questions of law
  • However, the Court treated the petition as filed under Rule 45 in the interest of justice, though it lacks substantive merit
• Substantive:
  • The RTC has jurisdiction over the case because violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 is punishable under Section 124(3) with imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years; the reference to "Section 47" in Section 124(3) is a clerical error that should properly refer to "Section 46" (Liability of Directors, Officers and Committee Members), and courts may correct such errors to carry out legislative intent and prevent absurdity
  • The dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence based on lack of jurisdiction is not an acquittal and does not bar appeal; an acquittal requires a determination on the merits (insufficiency of evidence), whereas dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is a termination of proceedings without prejudice to refiling in the proper court
  • Double jeopardy does not attach because the dismissal was granted upon petitioner's express consent by filing a demurrer to evidence; one of the requisites for double jeopardy is that the dismissal or termination must be without the express consent of the accused
  • Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required because the case is not an intra-cooperative dispute (between or among members) but a dispute between the Cooperative and its former chairperson; the State is the real offended party in criminal cases, while the Cooperative is merely a private complainant
  • The prior acquittal for falsification of private documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar the present prosecution because the two offenses have distinct and different essential elements; falsification is malum in se while violation of Section 46 is malum prohibitum, and res judicata is a doctrine of civil law with no bearing on criminal proceedings

• Correction of Clerical Errors in Statutes — Courts may correct clerical errors, mistakes, or misprints in statutes which, if uncorrected, would render the statute meaningless or defeat legislative intent, provided the meaning intended is apparent on the face of the whole enactment; applied to correct the reference to "Section 47" in Section 124(3) of RA 6938 to properly read "Section 46"
• Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases — Jurisdiction is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information in relation to the law prevailing at the time of filing and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its commission
• Demurrer to Evidence Distinguished from Acquittal — A dismissal on demurrer to evidence operates as an acquittal only when it is based on insufficiency of evidence (merits); when dismissal is based on lack of jurisdiction or other grounds not touching on guilt or innocence, it is not an acquittal and is appealable
• Double Jeopardy — Requisites are: (a) valid complaint or information; (b) court of competent jurisdiction; (c) accused pleaded to the charge; and (d) conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without express consent of accused; dismissal upon accused's motion or with express assent waives protection against double jeopardy
• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — Not required when the dispute is not intra-cooperative (not between or among members of the same cooperative) but between the cooperative and its former officer/director
• Identity of Offenses Test — Under Section 5 of Rule 120, an offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some essential elements of the former constitute the latter; offenses with different essential elements do not trigger double jeopardy even if arising from the same facts
• Res Judicata — A doctrine of civil law that has no bearing on criminal proceedings and cannot be invoked to bar criminal prosecution

• "The Court, in order to carry out the obvious intent of the legislature, may correct clerical errors, mistakes or misprints which, if uncorrected, would render the statute meaningless, empty or nonsensical or would defeat or impair its intended operation, so long as the meaning intended is apparent on the face of the whole enactment and no specific provision is abrogated."
• "Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that the defendant's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt; but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty."
• "Res judicata is a doctrine of civil law and thus has no bearing on criminal proceedings."
• "It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does not bar prosecution under the other."

• Mercado v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the distinction between Rule 45 (appeal by certiorari) and Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari), emphasizing that the former is a continuation of the appellate process while the latter is an independent action
• Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc. — Cited for the rule that certiorari is not available when appeal is available, and that the remedies under Rules 45 and 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative
• People v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the principle that a demurrer to evidence granted after the prosecution rests its case, resulting in dismissal on the merits, is tantamount to an acquittal and is final and unappealable
• Gutib v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of demurrer to evidence as an objection that the evidence is insufficient in point of law to sustain a verdict
• People v. Doriguez — Cited for the rule that double jeopardy protection applies only to the same offense; where two different laws define two crimes with different elements, prior jeopardy as to one is no obstacle to prosecution of the other
• Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman — Cited for the principle that res judicata is a doctrine of civil law with no application in criminal proceedings
• People v. Relova — Cited for the test to determine identity of offenses under Section 5 of Rule 120

• Section 46, Republic Act No. 6938 — Defines the liability of directors, officers and committee members who acquire personal interest adverse to the cooperative or are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith
• Section 124(3), Republic Act No. 6938 — Provides penalty of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years for violation of provisions on liability of directors, officers and committee members (interpreted by the Court to refer to Section 46 despite textual reference to Section 47)
• Section 124(4), Republic Act No. 6938 — Provides penalty of 6 months to 1 year for violations of the Code not otherwise penalized
• Section 32(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Grants Metropolitan Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years
• Section 20, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Grants Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Special civil action for certiorari (improperly availed of in this case)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court (proper remedy)
• Rule 117, Section 7, Rules of Court — Provision on former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy
• Rule 120, Section 5, Rules of Court — Test to determine whether an offense includes or is included in another
• Article 172(2), Revised Penal Code — Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents