Case Summary (G.R. No. 240053)
RTC Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Petitioner moved for demurrer to evidence, arguing Section 46 carries no penal sanction and penalties under Section 124(4) (imprisonment up to one year) fall under MeTC jurisdiction. RTC Branch 40 granted the demurrer, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. It also held that cooperative disputes must first undergo conciliation/mediation pursuant to administrative remedies in RA 6938 and its by-laws.
CA Reversal and Remand
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Section 46’s violations are penalized under Section 124(3) (five to ten years’ imprisonment), thus RTC has jurisdiction over offenses punishable by more than six years under BP 129.
- No pre-filing conciliation was required as the criminal case is not an intra-cooperative dispute but a public prosecution in which the State is the offended party.
- Dismissal based on jurisdiction does not amount to an acquittal; the dismissal is appealable.
Supreme Court’s Review of Remedy
Although petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari (challenging CA’s exercise of discretion), the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45. Nonetheless, the Court treated the petition as under Rule 45 and proceeded to the merits.
Jurisdiction Over Cooperative Code Offense
- Under BP 129, MeTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment up to six years; RTC over those exceeding six years.
- Section 124(3) refers to Section 46 (liability of directors/officers), imposing five to ten years’ imprisonment, placing the case within RTC jurisdiction.
- The Court corrected the apparent clerical error in Section 124(3), noting the legislature’s later amendment in RA 9520 confirms the reference to Section 46, not Section 47.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Criminal prosecution for RA 6938 violations is an offense against the State; private complainants function only as witnesses for the civil aspect. Therefore, cooperative-level mediation is not a prerequisite to filing criminal charges.
Demurrer to Evidence and Appealability
A dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction does not decide guilt or innocence on the merits; it is not an acquittal. Consequently, the order is appealable and does not invoke double jeopardy.
Double Jeopardy and Distinct Offense
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 240053)
Procedural History
- Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio y Consino was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code (RA 6938) before RTC, Branch 40, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 01-197750.
- On October 14, 2008, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the MeTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years.
- On February 12, 2009, the RTC denied the private prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration.
- The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 32363).
- On August 31, 2011, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC orders and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
- On January 31, 2012, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court; the People argued the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45.
Factual Background
- Petitioner served as Chairperson and Managing Director of A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative.
- She allegedly entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., in her personal capacity, diverting sales profits from the Cooperative.
- Under a Memorandum of Agreement, Dr. Nora T. Salamanca (school principal) demanded petitioner’s financial reports; petitioner refused, claiming reports were posted publicly.
- The principal formed an audit committee (Aurora Catabona, Monica Nealiga, Noemi Olazo, Sylvia Apostol) which secured Coca-Cola delivery and sales records and petitioner’s financial statements.
- Audit findings for misappropriations over three school years:
• 1998–1999: ₱54,008.00
• 1999–2000: ₱40,503.00
• 2000–2001: ₱8,945.00 - Petitioner was asked to return the funds but failed; the Cooperative’s Board authorized filing of criminal charges.
Issues Raised on Supreme Court Certiorari
- Whether the CA gravely erred in judicial construction of Sections 46 and 124 of RA 6938, imposi