Case Summary (G.R. No. 243328)
Petitioners and Respondents
Petitioner Petron Corporation filed complaints for unfair competition under Sections 168 and 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code). Respondents are accused of refilling Petron Gasul cylinders at their Cavite plant and selling them in Cavite and Makati.
Key Dates
• February 13 & 27, 2003 – Test-buys at Masagana’s Trece Martires plant
• February 18, 2003 – Surveillance of LPG cylinder deliveries to Makati warehouse
• April 3, 2003 – Applications for search warrants filed in RTC Cavite and RTC Makati
• July 2, 2010 – Information filed in RTC Trece Martires City (Criminal Case No. 239-10)
• February 21, 2011 – Information filed in RTC Makati City (Criminal Case No. 11-529)
• June 23, 2011 – RTC Makati denies motion to quash information
• July 24, 2014 – Arraignment in RTC Makati; respondents plead not guilty
• December 4, 2014 – Urgent Motion to Dismiss filed in RTC Makati
• May 29, 2015 – RTC Makati grants motion for reconsideration, quashes Makati information
• September 29, 2015 – RTC Makati denies Petron’s motion for reconsideration
• March 20, 2018 – CA Decision dismissing Petron’s petition for certiorari, affirming RTC Makati’s quashal
• November 28, 2018 – CA denies Petron’s motion for reconsideration
• March 18, 2021 – Supreme Court decision denying Petron’s petition for review
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (criminal prosecutions, power of Office of the Solicitor General)
• Republic Act No. 8293 (Sections 168.2, 168.3, 170) – Unfair competition and penalties
• Rule 110, Section 15(a) and Rule 126, Section 2(b), Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure – Territorial jurisdiction, transitory/continuing offenses
• Doctrine on delito continuado (continuous crime) from Supreme Court jurisprudence
Antecedent Facts
Petron engaged Able Research and Consulting Services, Inc. to investigate reports of unauthorized refilling of Petron Gasul LPG cylinders. NBI agents, with investigator Bernabe Alajar, conducted discreet surveillance and test-buys at Masagana’s Cavite plant on February 13 and 27, 2003, witnessing refilling and sale of Petron cylinders. On February 18 and 27, they observed deliveries to and sales at Masagana’s Makati warehouse. Cash invoices confirmed purchases of purported Petron Gasul LPG.
Procedural History
- Trece Martires RTC (Cavite) Information filed July 2, 2010 (Criminal Case No. 239-10)
- Makati RTC Information filed February 21, 2011 (Criminal Case No. 11-529)
- Respondents’ Motion to Quash (Makati RTC) denied June 23, 2011
- Arraignment and “Not Guilty” pleas July 24, 2014
- Urgent Motion to Dismiss (double jeopardy and exclusive jurisdiction arguments) denied February 16, 2015
- Motion for Reconsideration granted May 29, 2015; Makati RTC quashes Makati information for lack of jurisdiction, citing prior jurisdiction of Trece Martires RTC and characterizing unfair competition as a continuing crime
- Makati RTC denies reconsideration September 29, 2015
- Petron’s certiorari petition to CA dismissed March 20, 2018; CA affirms quashal and jurisdictional ruling
- CA denies reconsideration November 28, 2018
- Petron files petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the crime of unfair competition under RA 8293 is a continuing (transitory) offense, such that the RTC of Trece Martires City, having first acquired jurisdiction, divested the RTC of Makati City of authority to try the same alleged offense.
Court of Appeals’ Rationale
• Unfair competition constitutes a continuing crime: imitative device (refilling in Cavite) and subsequent sales (in Makati) are ingredients of one transitory/continuing offense.
• A continuous crime arises from a single criminal impulse, despite multiple acts in different localities. Hence only one penalty.
• Under Rule 110 and Rule 126, any court where an essential ingredient occurred may try a transitory offense; prior acquisition of jurisdiction by one court excludes others.
• Makati RTC correctly quashed the information because Trece Martires RTC first took cognizance of the alleged continuing unfair competition.
Petitioner’s Arguments
• Unfair competition is not a delito continuado: each distinct sale on separate dates and locations constitutes an independent offense, each requiring its own information.
• Transitory crime (for venue) is different from continuing crime (for criminal liability).
• Separate deceived consumers represent distinct offended parties and separate complaints.
• Makati RTC retains jurisdiction to try the Makati sales independently of the Cavite case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- OSG Representation
– Only the Office of the Solicitor General may represent the People in appeals concerning the criminal aspect of dismissed or quashed charges.
– OSG filed a Motion joining Petron’s petition, validating the proceeding. - Continuing vs. Delito Continuado
– Unfair competition under Se
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243328)
Facts
- Petron Corporation is the sole authorized refiller, distributor, and seller of LPG under the trademark “Gasul” in the Philippines.
- Reports surfaced that Masagana Gas Corp. was illegally refilling and distributing Petron-owned Gasul LPG cylinders.
- Petron engaged Bernabe Alajar to investigate and coordinate with NBI agents for surveillance and test-buys at Masagana’s refilling plant in Trece Martires, Cavite (February 13, 18, and 27, 2003).
- The NBI team personally witnessed Masagana employees refill Petron cylinders and issue cash invoices. They tracked a Masagana truck to a Makati warehouse where over 120 Petron Gasul cylinders were observed and subsequently purchased.
- On April 3, 2003, NBI agents applied for search warrants in Cavite and Makati courts for alleged violations of Sections 155 and 170 of RA 8293.
- Acting on Alajar’s complaint, DOJ’s Task Force recommended filing of separate informations for unfair competition (Section 168.3 in relation to Section 170, RA 8293) in Trece Martires City RTC (Crim. Case No. 239-10) and Makati RTC (Crim. Case No. 11-529).
Procedural History
- April 15, 2011: Respondents moved to quash the Makati information for lack of jurisdiction, double jeopardy, vagueness, and other grounds; RTC denied the motion (June 23, 2011).
- July 24, 2014: Respondents pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
- December 4, 2014: Respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss arguing transitory/continuing offense and prior cognizance by TMC RTC; RTC denied (February 16, 2015).
- May 29, 2015: On motion for reconsideration, Makati RTC granted quashal, ruling unfair competition a continuing offense and jurisdiction exclusive to TMC RTC.
- September 29, 2015: Makati RTC denied Petron’s motion for reconsideration.
- Petron filed petition for certiorari before the CA alleging grave abuse of d