Facts:

The case concerns the appeal of Jocelyn Asistio y Consino (petitioner) against the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the earlier dismissal of her case by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila due to lack of jurisdiction. The events occurred from July 27, 1998, onward in the City of Manila. Asistio was charged with violating Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) for misappropriating funds from the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, where she served as Chairperson and Managing Director. The charge arose when it was alleged that she entered into a personal agreement with Coca-Cola for the sale of its products, depriving the Cooperative of earnings it rightfully should have received. After the school principal ordered her to provide financial reports, she contended that she was not obliged to comply. An audit committee later reported that Asistio had defrauded the Cooperative over several years, leading to

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Jocelyn Asistio y Consino, then Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, is charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (RA 6938).
• The information alleged that petitioner, in her personal capacity, entered into a contract with Coca-Cola Products at a time when the sales of such products should have accrued to the Cooperative, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the Cooperative.

Allegations and Transaction Details

• The charge is predicated on her willful, unlawful, and felonious acquisition of personal interest adverse to the cooperative, against the fiduciary duty reposed in her.
• Evidence, including documents from Coca-Cola and financial statements, indicated misappropriation of cooperative funds over three academic years:
• S.Y. 1998-1999 – ₱54,008.00
• S.Y. 1999-2000 – ₱40,503.00
• S.Y. 2000-2001 – ₱8,945.00
• An audit committee headed by Aurora Catabona, and including Monica Nealiga, Noemi Olazo, and Sylvia Apostol, produced affidavits supporting the charge.

Trial Court Proceedings

• Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty and trial on the merits commenced.
• Petitioner moved to dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, lacked jurisdiction because the penal sanction provided under Section 124 of RA 6938 did not reach the level of criminal penalty that would warrant the court’s jurisdiction.
• On October 14, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; a subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on February 12, 2009, was denied.

Appellate and Certiorari Issues

• The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA).
• On August 31, 2011, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders and remanded the case back to the RTC for further proceedings.
• Petitioner, aggrieved by the CA decision, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, raising several issues regarding statutory interpretation, jurisdiction, and procedural propriety.

Petitioner’s Contentions in the Petition

• Argued that the CA drastically erred by disregarding the clear, unambiguous language of Section 124 (particularly paragraph 4) of RA 6938, which allegedly provided a lower penalty.
• Asserted that the CA ignored the ground that proper exhaustion of cooperative administrative remedies (conciliation/mediation) had not been observed.
• Contended that the remand by the CA converts the dismissal by Demurrer to Evidence into a de facto acquittal, making it unappealable.
• Raised the issue that remanding the case subjects her to double jeopardy and imposition of a higher criminal penalty.
• Claimed that the possible application of RA 9520, the amended Cooperative Code, invades the established facto law.

Issue:

• Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal by misinterpreting the statutory provisions on penal sanctions, namely the apparent discrepancy between Section 46 of RA 6938 and the penalty provision under Section 124.
• Whether the CA failed to give due consideration to the ground of lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies (primary jurisdiction) as required by cooperative by-laws and the Cooperative Code.
• Whether remanding the case to the RTC, after dismissal on a Demurrer to Evidence, improperly converts the dismissal into an acquittal, thereby making it unappealable.
• Whether remanding the case subjects petitioner to double jeopardy and imposes a harsher penalty than what was originally contemplated by the law.
• Whether the contention that the new Cooperative Code (RA 9520) should apply to this case against petitioner is valid, considering the principles of facto law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)