Sasot vs. People

The proper remedy against a denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to proceed to trial and raise their defenses there, with appeal available after an adverse judgment. Certiorari is not proper absent special or exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, for public crimes like unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, the private complainant's capacity to sue is immaterial, as the State is the principal injured party.

The case stems from a criminal complaint filed by NBA Properties, Inc. (a U.S. corporation) through its attorney-in-fact, alleging that petitioners were manufacturing and selling garments bearing counterfeit NBA trademarks. The investigating prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) before the RTC.

• Filed in RTC of Manila (Branch 1) as Criminal Case No. 98-166147.
• RTC denied petitioners' Motion to Quash the Information (Order dated March 5, 1999).
• Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 52151).
• CA dismissed the petition (Decision dated January 26, 2000), holding certiorari was not the proper remedy.
• Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
• Petitioners elevated the case to the SC via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Petitioners were investigated by the NBI based on a complaint from NBA Properties, Inc. for possible violation of Article 189, RPC (unfair competition).
• The NBI report stated petitioners were engaged in manufacturing, printing, selling, and distributing counterfeit "NBA" garment products.
• An Information was filed against petitioners.
• Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash, arguing: (1) the facts did not constitute an offense; (2) the RTC had no jurisdiction; (3) the complaint-affidavit was defective (a fax copy, not sworn before the prosecutor); (4) the complainant, a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines, had no capacity to sue; (5) their designs were original and not similar to the NBA's.
• The RTC denied the motion. The CA dismissed their subsequent certiorari petition.

• The complaint-affidavit was defective because it was not personally sworn to before the investigating prosecutor and the record contained only a fax copy.
• The complainant, NBA Properties, Inc., is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines and thus has no capacity to sue or be protected under Philippine patent laws.
• The NBA trademarks are not in actual use in the Philippines and are thus of public dominion.
• Petitioners' business name and designs are original and not similar to the NBA's, so no unfair competition occurred.
• The CA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing their certiorari petition.

• The prosecutor had the original copy of the complaint-affidavit, and the rules allow affidavits to be sworn before a notary public.
• The crime of unfair competition is a public crime; the State is the real party in interest, so the private complainant's capacity to sue is immaterial.
• Petitioners' arguments regarding originality and lack of similarity are matters of defense to be proven during trial.
• Certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a denial of a motion to quash; the proper course is to proceed to trial.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the facts charged in the Information constitute the offense of unfair competition.
  2. Whether a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines can maintain a criminal action for unfair competition.
  3. Whether the complaint-affidavit was fatally defective.

• Procedural: The SC ruled that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a denial of a motion to quash. The proper procedure is for the accused to plead, go to trial, present their special defenses, and appeal if convicted. No special or exceptional circumstances existed to justify immediate resort to certiorari.
• Substantive:
  1. The SC found no justification to quash the Information. The grounds raised (defective complaint, complainant's capacity) are not among the grounds for quashal under the Rules. The arguments were deemed matters of defense for trial.
  2. The SC held that unfair competition under Article 189, RPC is a public crime. The State is the principal injured party, so the private complainant's (foreign corporation) capacity to sue is immaterial.
  3. The complaint-affidavit was substantially sufficient. It was sworn to before a notary public (authenticated by the Philippine Consulate), and the prosecutor enjoys a presumption of regularity. Other supporting documents (NBI report, joint affidavit) also existed.

• Proper Remedy for Denial of Motion to Quash — The established rule is that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable. The accused must proceed to trial and assign the denial as an error on appeal from a final judgment. Certiorari is only allowed in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion or when the trial is palpably void.
• Public Crime Doctrine — A criminal offense is essentially an act against the State. For public crimes (like unfair competition), the People of the Philippines is the real party in interest, and the private complainant is merely a witness. Therefore, the private offended party's capacity to sue or lack thereof is not a ground to dismiss the prosecution.
• Presumption of Regularity — Prosecutors and other public officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. This presumption applies to the finding of probable cause and the handling of evidence like the original complaint-affidavit.

• "The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law."
• "The crime of Unfair Competition punishable under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime. It is essentially an act against the State and it is the latter which principally stands as the injured party. The complainant’s capacity to sue in such case becomes immaterial."
• _"We cannot allow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue." (Citing La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez*)

• La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez — Cited as controlling precedent. The SC followed its ruling that for unfair competition (a public crime), a foreign corporation's capacity to sue is immaterial, and the Philippines has an international obligation under the Paris Convention to protect foreign trademarks.
• Raro vs. Sandiganbayan and Basa vs. People — Cited to support the doctrine that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a denial of a motion to quash.
• People vs. Cayosa and People vs. Historillo — Cited to support the ruling that a defect in the oath of a complaint is a mere defect of form that does not invalidate the information or affect the substantial rights of the accused.

• Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code — The substantive law defining the crime of unfair competition (now repealed by R.A. No. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code, but applicable at the time of the offense).
• Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates the exclusive grounds for quashing an information. The SC noted that the grounds raised by petitioners were not among those listed.
• Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides the requirements for a sufficient complaint in a preliminary investigation. The SC found the complaint-affidavit substantially complied with these requirements.
• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property — An international treaty cited to underscore the Philippines' obligation to protect foreign trademarks, reinforcing why a foreign corporation's capacity to sue should not bar prosecution.