Asistio y Consino vs. People

Facts:

Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino (accused) was charged by the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, through private complainants including Monica Nealiga, with violating Section 46 of the Cooperative Code (Republic Act No. 6938). The Information alleged that in or about July 27, 1998 petitioner, as Chairperson and Managing Director of the Cooperative, entered into an exclusive dealership with Coca‑Cola in her personal capacity, thereby diverting sales profits that should have accrued to the Cooperative.

During trial the prosecution offered documentary proof (including Coca‑Cola delivery and sales records) and testimony from an audit committee constituted by the school principal, which found unaccounted amounts for School Years 1998–1999, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and, after the prosecution rested, moved for dismissal by way of demurrer to evidence, arguing principally that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Manila, lacked jurisdiction because the alleged penalty fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs).

On October 14, 2008 the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the applicable penalty (as read by the court) was imprisonment of not less than six months and not more than one year (Section 124[4] of RA 6938), placing the offense within MeTC jurisdiction; the RTC denied reconsideration on February 12, 2009 and reiterated that prior conciliation/mediation under the Cooperative Code had not been pursued, thus implicating the rule on primary jurisdiction/exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 31, 2011 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings; the CA denied reconsideration on January 31, 2012. Petitioner then filed a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in the Supreme Court, attacking the CA decision on grounds including statutory construction of Sections 46 a...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is a special civil action under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals decision reversing the RTC, or should the remedy have been a petition for review under Rule 45?
• Which court has jurisdiction over the offense charged (MeTC or RTC): does Section 46 of RA 6938 carry a penalty within MeTC jurisdiction or does Section 124(3) (as construed) render the offense triable by the RTC?
• Was prior conciliation/mediation (exhaustion of administrative remedies/primary jurisdiction) required before filing the criminal complaint?
• Does the dismissal by demurrer to evidence that the RTC granted on the ground of lack of jurisdiction constitute an acquittal (thus final and unappeal...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)