Asistio y Consino vs. People

Factual Background

Petitioner served as Chairperson and Managing Director of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative. The Information alleged that she entered into a contract with Coca-Cola Products in her personal capacity and thereby acquired an interest adverse to the Cooperative, depriving the Cooperative of sales profits that should have accrued to it. An audit committee created by the school principal reviewed Coca-Cola delivery and sales records and the Cooperative's financial statements and concluded that petitioner had defrauded the Cooperative in the amounts of P54,008.00 for S.Y. 1998-1999, P40,503.00 for S.Y. 1999-2000, and P8,945.00 for S.Y. 2000-2001. The Cooperative passed a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of criminal charges for violation of Section 46, RA 6938.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial on the merits proceeded. After the prosecution rested, petitioner moved for dismissal by way of demurrer to evidence with leave of court, contending inter alia that the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the offense charged carried a penalty falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts. On October 14, 2008, the RTC granted the demurrer and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the applicable penalty under paragraph 4 of Section 124, RA 6938 was imprisonment of six months to one year and a fine of not less than P1,000, thus placing jurisdiction with the MeTCs. The RTC further observed that conciliation or mediation under the Cooperative Code had not been pursued and held that the rule on primary jurisdiction rendered the complaint deficient. The RTC denied the private prosecutor's motion for reconsideration on February 12, 2009.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The Office of the Solicitor General appealed the RTC dismissal to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed and set aside the RTC Orders on August 31, 2011 and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. The CA concluded that the RTC erred in applying paragraph 4 of Section 124 because paragraph 3 of the same section, properly read, imposed a penal sanction of imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years for violations of the provision governing liability of directors and officers; the CA treated the reference to Section 47 in paragraph 3 as a clerical error and read it to refer to the liability provision now identified as Section 46. The CA also held that the dispute was not an intra-cooperative controversy requiring exhaustion of conciliation procedures and therefore that primary jurisdiction did not bar resort to regular courts. The CA denied reconsideration on January 31, 2012.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner sought relief by certiorari under Rule 65 and challenged the CA reversal on multiple grounds: that the CA disregarded the plain wording of paragraph 4 of Section 124, RA 6938 and thereby subjected petitioner to a higher penal exposure; that the CA ignored the RTC's other grounds for dismissal including violation of the rule on primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies; that the CA remand violated the rule that a dismissal on demurrer to evidence amounts to an acquittal and is unappealable; that remand exposed petitioner to double jeopardy and a higher penalty; and that application of the amended RA 9520 might operate as ex post facto law against petitioner.

Procedural and Jurisdictional Thresholds Considered by the Court

The Supreme Court first addressed procedural propriety: petitioner invoked Rule 65 although the ordinary remedy from a CA decision is a petition for review under Rule 45. The Court noted the distinction between Rule 45 and Rule 65 remedies as articulated in Mercado v. Court of Appeals and related authorities, and observed that while the Court may, in the interest of justice, treat an improperly filed Rule 65 petition as one under Rule 45, no justifiable reason warranted such liberal treatment here. The Court nonetheless proceeded to resolve the substantive issues and held that the petition lacked merit.

Supreme Court Ruling on Jurisdiction and Statutory Construction

On the central question of which court had jurisdiction, the Court affirmed the CA and held that the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction. The Court applied the rule that criminal jurisdiction is determined by the averments of the Information and the penalty provided by law at the time of commission. It reiterated that under Section 32, B.P. Blg. 129 MeTCs have exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, and that Section 20, B.P. Blg. 129 vests the RTC with exclusive jurisdiction over offenses not within the exclusive jurisdiction of lower courts, notably those carrying imprisonment exceeding six years. The Court accepted the OSG's contention that Section 124(3), RA 6938 was intended to penalize violations of the liability provision governing directors and officers—properly Section 46—with imprisonment of not less than five years but not more than ten years, and that the citation in paragraph 3 to Section 47 was a clerical error. The Court applied established principles allowing correction of clerical errors where the intended meaning is apparent from the statute as a whole and where correction effectuates legislative intent. The Court further observed that the subsequent enactment of RA 9520 corrected and reinforced the construction that the liability provision carries a grave penal sanction within the RTC's jurisdiction.

Rulings on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies and Nature of the Dispute

The Court rejected petitioner's contention that failure to pursue conciliation or other intra-cooperative administrative remedies barred criminal prosecution. The Court agreed with the CA that the case did not involve an intra-cooperative dispute between members but a prosecution in which the State was the real offended party. The Board Resolution authorizing criminal action on behalf of the Cooperative evidenced that the controversy was not merely an internal dispute resolvable exclusively through cooperative-level procedures. The Court emphasized the settled principle that where the State is the offended party, private complainants and members are limited to asserting civil liability, and the criminal prosecution proceeds in the regular courts.

Demurrer to Evidence, Appealability, and Double Jeopardy

The Court distinguished the present dismissal from an acquittal on the merits. Citing Gutib v. Court of Appeals and People v. Sandiganbayan, the Court explained that a demurrer to evidence granted for insufficiency of proof operates as an acquittal and is final and unappealable. Here, by contrast, the RTC dismissed the case on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction; it did not resolve the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence on the merits. Consequently the dismissal did not constitute an acquittal barring appeal. On double jeopardy, the Court held that its protection did not attach because the dismissal resulted from petitioner’s own demurrer to evidence and thus was with the accused's consent; the Supreme Court reiterated that where dismissal is ordered upon or with the express assent of the accused, the accused is deemed to have waived the protection against double jeopardy.

Res Judicata and Identity of Offenses

Petitioner argued that a subsequent acquittal by the MeTC in a separate falsification case operated as a