Case Digest (G.R. No. 200465) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Jocelyn Asistio y Consino vs. People of the Philippines and Monica Nealiga (G.R. No. 200465, April 20, 2015), petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino, then Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, was charged in 1998 with violating Section 46 of Republic Act (RA) 6938 (Cooperative Code) for allegedly entering into a personal dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Products to the damage of the Cooperative. Upon arraignment, she pleaded “not guilty,” and the prosecution presented evidence that she misappropriated Cooperative funds amounting to P54,008.00 (S.Y. 1998–1999), P40,503.00 (1999–2000), and P8,945.00 (2000–2001). Petitioner moved for a demurrer to evidence, arguing that Section 46 of RA 6938 prescribes no criminal sanction and that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, lacked jurisdiction. On October 14, 2008, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction; on February 1
Case Digest (G.R. No. 200465) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background
- Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. She entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. in her personal capacity, diverting sales proceeds from the Cooperative in violation of her duties under Section 46, RA 6938.
- The school principal, Dr. Nora T. Salamanca, demanded petitioner’s financial reports. Petitioner refused, claiming reports were posted on the bulletin board. An audit committee (Aurora Catabona, Monica Nealiga, Noemi Olazo, Sylvia Apostol) was formed, which found misappropriation of Cooperative funds for three school years:
- SY 1998-1999 – ₱54,008.00
- SY 1999-2000 – ₱40,503.00
- SY 2000-2001 – ₱8,945.00
- Procedural History
- Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 46, RA 6938, pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented its evidence.
- RTC Branch 40, Manila, dismissed the case (Oct 14, 2008) for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the penalty for Section 46 violation fell under Section 124(4) (up to one year imprisonment), thus within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC). The RTC denied reconsideration (Feb 12, 2009).
- The People appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and set aside the RTC orders and remanded the case (Aug 31, 2011); the CA denied reconsideration (Jan 31, 2012).
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court, raising five issues.
Issues:
- Did the CA err in applying Section 124(3) of RA 6938 (5–10 years penalty) to Sec 46 instead of Section 124(4) (up to one year), thereby justifying RTC jurisdiction?
- Did the CA ignore petitioner’s argument that the case violated the rule on primary jurisdiction by failing to exhaust administrative remedies (conciliation/mediation) under the Cooperative Code?
- Did remanding the case ignore the rule that dismissal on demurrer to evidence equals acquittal and is unappealable?
- Does remand subject petitioner to double jeopardy and a higher penalty?
- Would applying RA 9520 (2008 Cooperative Code) to this case violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)