Title
Yao vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 132428
Decision Date
Oct 24, 2000
Philippine case involving counterfeit GE starters leads to conviction, procedural errors, and Supreme Court remand for due process and constitutional compliance in decision-making.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132428)

Background of the Case

In June 1990, an investigation led to the discovery of counterfeit General Electric (GE) lamp starters being sold by TCC. PEMCO, affiliated with GE, initiated a search warrant that led to the seizure of large quantities of these counterfeit starters from TCC's warehouse. Yao and Alfredo Roxas, a member of TCC's Board of Directors, were charged with unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.

Trial Proceedings and Verdict

During the trial in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), the prosecution presented evidence, including testimonies from individuals who had training on differentiating genuine and counterfeit GE starters. Yao, as the lone defense witness, claimed ignorance of any wrongdoing. The MeTC ultimately acquitted Roxas due to insufficient evidence but convicted Yao, determining that he was aware the goods were not genuine GE products.

Sentencing and Civil Liability

Yao was sentenced to a minimum of four months and twenty-one days to a maximum of one year and five months of imprisonment and was ordered to pay PEMCO Php 20,000 for consequential damages and another Php 20,000 for attorney's fees.

Appeal Progression

Yao filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MeTC denied. Subsequently, he appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MeTC's decision. Yao filed a motion for reconsideration concerning the RTC's ruling, which was also denied.

Court of Appeals Resolution

Yao's case was forwarded to the Court of Appeals, where it was observed that he failed to file his appeal correctly. As a result, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution declaring the RTC's decision final and executory, remanding the records for proper execution.

Procedural Issues Raised by Yao

Yao petitioned for review on certiorari, contesting the Court of Appeals' resolution. He argued that he had not been provided due process, claiming that the appellate court's decision was vague and did not properly address the findings of law and fact as required under the Constitution.

Court of Appeals' Comments

The Office of the Solicitor General defended the Court of Appeals' actions, indicating that while the resolution did not specify the dismissal of the appeal, it was nonetheless clear that the decision was final. They noted Yao's failure to remedy his appeal through the proper procedural route.

Supreme Cour

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.