G.R. No. 200465 - Asistio y Consino vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200465)

Key Dates

Alleged offense: ca. July 27, 1998.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissal orders: October 14, 2008; denial of reconsideration February 12, 2009.
Court of Appeals (CA) decision reversing RTC: August 31, 2011; M.R. denied January 31, 2012.
Supreme Court decision: April 20, 2015.
(Decision falls after 1990; the 1987 Constitution governs constitutional questions in the decision.)

Applicable Law and Legal Instruments

Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) — Sections 46 and 124 implicated; Section 47 (compensation) also referenced in statutory construction.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), as amended — Sections 20 and 32 governing jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs).
Republic Act No. 9520 (Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008) — later legislative correction and amendment of the penal provisions originally in RA 6938.
Rules of Court: Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari), Rule 41 (appeals), and provisions on demurrer to evidence and double jeopardy (Rule 117, Rule 120 referenced).
Constitutional protection against double jeopardy (1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 21).

Facts

Petitioner, while serving as chairperson of the Cooperative, allegedly entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca‑Cola in her personal capacity so that sales profits which should have accrued to the Cooperative instead benefited her. The Cooperative formed an audit committee after the school principal requested financial reports; the committee relied on Coca‑Cola delivery and sales records and petitioner’s financial statements and concluded there were misappropriations for school years 1998–1999, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001, in specified amounts. The Cooperative’s Board resolved to file criminal charges; an Information for violation of Section 46, RA 6938, was filed and petitioner pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence and, invoking lack of jurisdiction and alleged absence of penal sanction in Section 46, sought dismissal.

Procedural History

RTC, Branch 40, Manila: dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (October 14, 2008), holding that Section 46 contains no penal sanction and that, if any sanction applied, it would fall under paragraph 4 of Section 124 (imprisonment 6 months to 1 year) and therefore fall within MeTC jurisdiction. Denied motion for reconsideration (February 12, 2009), also holding that conciliation/mediation under the Cooperative Code had not been pursued and that primary jurisdiction had been violated.
People (OSG) appealed to the CA. CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders and remanded the records to the RTC for further proceedings (August 31, 2011); motion for reconsideration denied (January 31, 2012).
Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court; the Court treated both procedural and substantive questions and affirmed the CA decision.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal by construing the penal provisions so as to subject petitioner to a higher penalty (5–10 years) and thus vest jurisdiction in the RTC rather than MeTC.
Whether the CA ignored the RTC’s other grounds for dismissal, namely the rule on primary jurisdiction (exhaustion of administrative remedies/conciliation).
Whether remanding the case after dismissal on demurrer to evidence contravenes the rule that a demurrer granted operates as an acquittal and is unappealable.
Whether remand would place petitioner in double jeopardy or expose her to a higher penalty retroactively.
Whether application of RA 9520 (amended Cooperative Code) would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Legal Analysis — Proper Procedural Remedy and Treatment of the Petition

The Court emphasized the distinction between Rule 45 (petition for review on certiorari from CA decisions) and Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari). Rule 45 is the ordinary remedy from CA decisions; Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy limited to grave abuse of discretion and where no plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists. The Court noted that petitions under Rules 45 and 65 are mutually exclusive, and absent compelling justification, the Court may treat a Rule 65 filing as a Rule 45 remedy only in limited circumstances. Here, no justifiable reason for the procedural deviation was shown, but the Court proceeded to decide the substantive issues on the merits and found the petition lacking in substantive merit. (Citations: Mercado; Artistica Ceramica; International Corporate Bank.)

Jurisdictional Question — RTC vs. MeTC

Jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the averments of the Information and the penalty provided by law at the time of commission. B.P. Blg. 129, Section 32 grants MeTC exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of fines; Section 20 vests RTCs with jurisdiction over offenses not within the exclusive jurisdiction of lower courts.
The RTC had relied on paragraph 4 of Section 124 (RA 6938) — a catchall penal provision prescribing imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year and fine of not less than P1,000 — to conclude MeTC jurisdiction. The People (OSG) and the CA argued Section 124 paragraph 3 was the applicable penal provision for violators of the provision governing liability of directors/officers (Section 46), but paragraph 3 mistakenly referred to Section 47 (compensation) instead of Section 46, a clerical error.

Statutory Construction and Correction of Clerical Error

The Court accepted the OSG’s argument that paragraph 3’s reference to Section 47 was a clerical error and that the penal consequence intended by the statute was for violations of the provision on liability of directors/officers (Section 46). The Court stated that when a clerical error, mistake or misprint would otherwise render the statute nonsensical or defeat legislative intent, the judiciary may correct such error if the intended meaning is apparent on the face of the enactment and no specific provision is abrogated. Applying sensible construction to effectuate legislative intent, the Court read Section 124(3) as referring to Section 46, thus imposing a heavier penalty (five to ten years and/or fine) for violation of Section 46. Because that penalty exceeds six years (in the maximum), jurisdiction properly lies with the RTC under B.P. Blg. 129, Section 20. The Court also noted that the legislative correction in RA 9520 (which explicitly ties penal sanctions to the article corresponding to liability of directors and prescribes heavy penalties) confirmed that Congress intended harsher penalties for such offenses.

Primary Jurisdiction / Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The RTC had also dismissed on the ground that the complainants failed to exhaust conciliation/mediation procedures and other administrative remedies within the Cooperative system pursuant to the Cooperative Code and its implementing guidelines. The Court disagreed that conciliation/mediation was a precondition to criminal prosecution. The Court distinguished intra‑cooperative disputes (disputes among members) from a criminal prosecution initiated by the Cooperative against a former officer where the State is the offended party. The Board Resolution authorizing filing of criminal charges on behalf of the Cooperative confirmed that the dispute was not merely intra‑cooperative; because the real offended party in criminal cases is the State, private complainants’ remedies are limited to civil relief. Accordingly, failure to pursue intra‑cooperative conciliation/mediation did not divest RTC jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution under RA 6938.

Demurrer to Evidence, Dismissal, and Appealability

The Court explained the legal effect of a granted demurrer to evidence: when granted because the prosecution’s evidence is legally insufficient to sustain conviction, it amounts to an acquittal on the merits and is final and unappealable (double jeopardy bar). However, where a demurrer is granted on non‑merits grounds (e.g., court lacks jurisdiction), the dismissal is not an acquittal on the merits and is therefore appealable. Here, the RTC’s dismissal was premised on lack of jurisdiction rather than insufficiency of evidence; consequently, the dismissal did not operate as an acquittal and could be appealed. The CA’s reversal and remand thus did not place petitioner beyond retrial on the merits.

Double Jeopardy

The Court applied the Rule: double jeopardy attaches only when the following requisites are present — valid complaint or information; court of competent jurisdiction; arraignment and plea; and termination by conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s express consent. The Court found that double jeopardy did not attach because the dismissal was sought by petitioner via demurrer to evidence (i.e., with her consent), and where dismissal is at the accused’s instance or with express assent, the accused is deemed to have waived the protection against double jeopardy. Therefore, remand and further prosecution did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Res Judicata and Multiple Prosecutions; Identity of Offenses

Petitioner argued that acquittal by the MeTC in a separate case (falsification of private document) should bar prosecution under Section 46 by res judicata or by double jeopardy. The Court clarified that res judicata is a civil doctrine and not operative in criminal prosecutions. As to double jeopardy, the Court applied the rule for identity of offenses: the requisite inquiry is whether the two offenses necessarily include one another, using the elemental test. The falsification charge (Article 172(2) RPC) requires acts of falsification in a private document with intent to damage a third party; Section 46 RA 6938 requires that a dire

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 200465)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 31, 2011 and Resolution dated January 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR No. 32363.
The CA had reversed and set aside the Orders of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila dated October 14, 2008 and February 12, 2009, and remanded the records to the RTC for further proceedings.
Petitioner filed the present special civil action after the CA denied her motion for reconsideration; she raises multiple legal issues challenging the CA’s reversal and remand.
The Supreme Court renders a decision denying the petition and affirms the CA Decision and Resolution.

Case Facts — Parties, Role and Allegations

Petitioner: Jocelyn Asistio y Consino, formerly Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (the Cooperative).
Private complainants (members/officers of the Cooperative) and witnesses include the Cooperative’s audit committee: Aurora Catabona (Chairperson), Monica Nealiga (member), Noemi Olazo (Chairperson-auditor) and Sylvia Apostol (auditor).
Accusation: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (RA 6938) for allegedly acquiring a personal interest adverse to the Cooperative by entering into a contract with Coca-Cola in her personal capacity, thereby diverting sales profits that should have accrued to the Cooperative.
Prosecution relied on Coca-Cola records (deliveries and sales) and financial statements prepared by petitioner; audit committee found misappropriations for school years: S.Y. 1998–1999 (P54,008.00), S.Y. 1999–2000 (P40,503.00), S.Y. 2000–2001 (P8,945.00).
Cooperative issued a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of criminal charges after petitioner allegedly failed to return amounts demanded.

Information, Plea and Trial Developments

The Information alleged that on or about July 27, 1998, in Manila, petitioner, as Chairperson and Managing Director, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously acquired personal interest adverse to the Cooperative by entering into a contract for sale of Coca-Cola products in her personal capacity, to the damage and prejudice of the Cooperative.
Petitioner pleaded "not guilty" at arraignment.
The prosecution presented its evidence; petitioner moved for dismissal by way of Demurrer to Evidence with prior leave of court, contending, among other things, lack of jurisdiction because Section 46 of RA 6938 allegedly did not carry a criminal sanction.

RTC Rulings (October 14, 2008 and February 12, 2009)

RTC Branch 40 dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on October 14, 2008, reasoning that:
- Under B.P. Blg. 129 (as amended), MeTCs, MTCs, MCTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years.
- Violation of Section 46 of RA 6938, the RTC said, would be punishable under Section 124, paragraph 4 of RA 6938 by imprisonment of not less than six months nor more than one year and a fine of not less than P1,000.00 — thus within first-level courts’ jurisdiction.
- Because the RTC had no jurisdiction, it dismissed the case and deemed other defense contentions moot and academic.
RTC denied reconsideration on February 12, 2009, reiterating:
- Section 46 did not expressly provide penal sanctions but only civil liabilities (damages and double profits).
- If penalty existed, it would fall under paragraph 4 of Section 124 and thus be within first-level courts’ jurisdiction.
- Failure to exhaust internal cooperative conciliation/mediation remedies under Cooperative Code, implementing guidelines (Memo Circular No. 2007-05, Series of 2007) and the Cooperative’s by-laws meant violation of primary jurisdiction; the RTC acquired no jurisdiction.
- The dispute was, in RTC’s view, intra-cooperative among directors/officers/members and thus administrative remedies should have been exhausted.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals and Its Ruling

The People of the Philippines (Office of the Solicitor General) appealed the RTC’s dismissal to the CA.
The CA reversed and set aside the RTC Orders (October 14, 2008 and February 12, 2009) and remanded the case to the RTC for proper proceedings, effectively holding that the RTC did have jurisdiction.
The CA concluded: the offense charged is punishable by a penalty falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC, and the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous.

Issues Raised by Petitioner Before the Supreme Court

Whether the CA gravely erred in disregarding the clear language of Section 124, paragraph 4 of RA 6938 and instead adopting an interpretation that subjects petitioner to a higher penal penalty (5 to 10 years) under paragraph 3 of Section 124.
Whether the CA ignored other grounds for dismissal, specifically the rule on primary jurisdiction requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies at cooperative level.
Whether remanding the case after dismissal on Demurrer to Evidence acts as an acquittal and thus unappealable, rendering remand improper and violative of double jeopardy principles.
Whether applying later amendments (RA 9520) or a new Cooperative Code to petitioner would violate ex post facto prohibitions (presented in bracketed form in the source).

Procedural Remedy: Rule 65 vs Rule 45 Argument

Petitioner filed under Rule 65 (certiorari) claiming grave abuse of discretion by the CA.
The OSG pointed out that the proper remedy to assail a CA decision is a petition for review under Rule 45.
Supreme Court reiterates longstanding precedents (Mercado v. Court of Appeals; Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner’s Association, Inc.; International Corporate Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals) distinguishing Rule 45 and Rule 65 remedies:
- Rule 45 is the normal appellate remedy from CA decisions.
- Rule 65 is a special civil action and generally cannot substitute for an appeal where an available remedy exists.
The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, treat a Rule 65 petition as Rule 45; here, no justifiable reasons were given and the petition lacked substantive merit, so the Court treats the issue on substance and denies relief.

Jurisdictional Analysis — Applicable Law and Penal Provisions

Jurisdiction in criminal case