Case Digest (G.R. No. 236620)
Facts:
Jose T. Tengco III and Anthony Kierulf (G.R. No. 236620), Barbara May L. Garcia (G.R. No. 236802), and Herley Jesuitas (G.R. No. 237156) v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 236620, 236802 and 237156, February 01, 2023, First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.The criminal charges arose from investments placed with Philippine International Planning Center Corporation (PIPCC), a corporation incorporated in 2001 which was not registered to solicit or sell securities in the Philippines. After PIPCC’s chairman Michael H.K. Liew disappeared in July 2007 along with substantial investor funds, thirty-one verified complaints were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (SEC‑EIPD) alleging that PIPCC, through its officers, agents and brokers (which included the petitioners and several co‑accused), solicited investments in foreign currency with promises of high returns while representing that PIPCC was properly licensed.
The SEC‑EIPD investigated, concluded that PIPCC was not licensed to solicit the public, found probable cause against various officers, agents and brokers, and referred a complaint to the Department of Justice (DOJ). A DOJ prosecutorial panel conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause. An Information charging violation of Section 28 of the Securities Regulation Code (sale/offer of securities without registration) was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 139, Makati City, on June 19, 2008; the accused pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
During trial, the RTC (Judge Benjamin T. Pozon) queried the SEC whether it had issued notices/subpoenas or arrived at a finding of probable cause before referring the matter to the DOJ. The SEC certified it had conducted an investigation and that it filed with the DOJ only after finding probable cause. In August 2015, after years of proceedings, Garcia moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the SEC allegedly failed to conduct its own preliminary investigation in accordance with Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code; the other petitioners later filed similar motions. In Orders dated May 16, 2016 and November 23, 2016, the RTC granted the motions and dismissed Criminal Case No. 08‑1083 for lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the RTC’s finding of lack of jurisdiction and asserting grave abuse of discretion by the RTC judge. The CA granted certiorari, annulled and set aside the RTC Orders, reinstated the Information and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings (Decision dated July 10, 2017; Resolution d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the RTC’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction?
- Did the alleged failure of the SEC to conduct its own preliminary investigation under Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code deprive the RTC of jurisdiction or otherwise warrant dismissal of the Information for denial of due process?
- Did petitioners waive any objection to the validity of the SEC investigation by particip...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)