Case Digest (G.R. No. 158131)
Facts:
Social Security System v. Department of Justice, Jose V. Martel, Olga S. Martel, and Systems and Encoding Corporation, G.R. No. 158131, August 08, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Social Security System (SSS) is the government corporation created by RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282, charged with collecting employer-employee contributions. Respondents are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and privately Jose V. Martel, Olga S. Martel, and Systems and Encoding Corporation (SENCOR); the Martels were SENCOR directors (Jose Martel as chairman). SENCOR allegedly failed to remit SSS contributions covering overlapping periods in the 1990s.
In 1998 SSS filed a complaint (I.S. No. 98-L-1534) for nonpayment of contributions (Jan. 1991–May 1997, ~P6.94M). The Martels offered a Tagaytay parcel by way of dacion en pago; SSS purportedly accepted subject to a condition that the Martels settle the obligation by dacion en pago or cash within a reasonable time. SSS then withdrew the 1998 complaint and the Pasay City Prosecutor dismissed I.S. No. 98-L-1534. The record shows preparations toward effecting the dacion en pago but no completed transfer before subsequent events.
On December 7, 2001 SSS filed a new complaint (I.S. No. 00-L-7142) for a larger period (Feb. 1991–Oct. 2000, ~P21.15M). Pasay City Assistant Prosecutor Artemio Puti, in a Resolution dated February 28, 2001, found probable cause for violation of Sec. 22(a) and (b) in relation to Sec. 28(e) of RA 1161, as amended, and forwarded an Information to the RTC of Pasay (Criminal Case No. 01-0517), while dismissing some co-accused for insufficiency of evidence.
Respondents appealed Prosecutor Puti’s Resolution to the DOJ. In a Resolution dated May 18, 2001, DOJ Undersecretary Teehankee reversed the prosecutor, ordered withdrawal of the Information, and held that the earlier dismissal of I.S. No. 98-L-1534 evidenced a compromise and novation that negated criminal liability because the compromise occurred before filing of the later information. SSS sought reconsideration; DOJ denied the motion on September 20, 2001.
SSS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated October 17, 2002 (and a denial of reconsideration on May 5, 2003), ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the concept of novation bar the criminal prosecution of the Martels for violation of Section 22(a) and (b) in relation to Section 28(e) of RA 1161, as amended?
- May the Supreme Court review and overturn the findings of prosecutors and the DOJ in a preliminary investigation re...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)