Asistio v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jocelyn Asistio y Consino (Petitioner), Chairperson of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, was charged with violating Section 46 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6938. The prosecution alleged that Asistio entered into an exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. in her personal capacity, diverting profits that should have accrued to the Cooperative. An audit committee found that Asistio defrauded the Cooperative of approximately P103,456.00 over three school years (1998-2001). Procedural History: After the prosecution rested, Asistio filed a Demurrer to Evidence. On October 14, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 40, dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the violation fell under Section 124(4) of RA 6938, which carried a penalty within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC, ruling that the RTC had jurisdiction because the applicable penalty was found in Section 124(3), which provides for 5 to 10 years of imprisonment. The CA noted that the reference to Section 47 in Section 124(3) was a clerical error and should have referred to Section 46. The Petition: Asistio filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. She contended that the CA's statutory construction subjected her to a higher penalty, that the rule on primary jurisdiction/exhaustion of administrative remedies was violated, and that the remand of the case violated her right against double jeopardy since the dismissal on demurrer amounted to an acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals (CA) decision was a petition for review under Rule 45 or a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) has jurisdiction over a violation of Section 46 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6938. Whether the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies or the requirement for conciliation/mediation applies to this criminal case. Whether the dismissal of the case on a demurrer to evidence based on lack of jurisdiction constitutes an acquittal that bars an appeal under the rule on double jeopardy. Whether the prosecution is barred by res judicata or double jeopardy due to a prior acquittal in a falsification case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case, the dismissal did not constitute an acquittal, and double jeopardy did not attach.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the proper remedy from a judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) is an appeal via petition for review under Rule 45, not Rule 65. A special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action and cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. While the Court may sometimes treat a Rule 65 petition as one under Rule 45 in the interest of justice, Petitioner failed to provide justifiable reasons for such a liberal interpretation. The petition raised only questions of law, which are the proper subject of Rule 45. On Issue 2: The Court affirmed that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction. It held that Section 124(3) of Republic Act No. (RA) 6938, which imposes a penalty of 5 to 10 years, applies to violations of Section 46. The reference to Section 47 in Section 124(3) was a clerical error because Section 46 governs the 'Liability of Directors,' while Section 47 governs 'Compensation.' Applying the rule of statutory construction, the Court corrected this error to effectuate legislative intent. Since the penalty exceeds six years, the case falls under the RTC's jurisdiction pursuant to Batas Pansa (B.P.) Blg. 129. On Issue 3: Conciliation or mediation is not a prerequisite to filing this criminal case because it is not an 'intra-cooperative dispute.' An intra-cooperative dispute is one arising between or among members of the same cooperative. In criminal cases, the State is the real offended party, and the interest of the private complainant is limited to civil liability. Therefore, the dispute between the Cooperative (represented by its Board) and its former chairperson for criminal acts does not require prior administrative exhaustion. On Issue 4: The dismissal on demurrer to evidence did not amount to an acquittal. Citing People v. Sandiganbayan, the Court explained that while a demurrer usually results in an acquittal on the merits, the RTC in this case dismissed the case solely for lack of jurisdiction. It did not resolve the issue of guilt or innocence based on the evidence. Because the dismissal was granted upon Petitioner's motion and was not based on the merits, double jeopardy did not attach, and the State was not barred from appealing the erroneous jurisdictional ruling. On Issue 5: Double jeopardy and res judicata do not apply despite the Petitioner's acquittal in a separate falsification case. The elements of Falsification of Private Document under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and Violation of Section 46 of RA 6938 are entirely distinct. The former is malum in se requiring criminal intent, while the latter is malum prohibitum. Applying People v. Doriguez, the Court held that a single act may offend two unrelated provisions of law; if each requires proof of a fact the other does not, prosecution for one does not bar the other.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court holds that in order to carry out the obvious intent of the legislature, the Court may correct clerical errors, mistakes, or misprints in a statute which, if uncorrected, would render the statute meaningless or defeat its intended operation. In this case, the reference to Section 47 in the penal provision of Section 124(3) of Republic Act No. 6938 was a clerical error that should have referred to Section 46, as Section 46 defines the liability of directors while Section 47 merely deals with compensation. Furthermore, jurisdiction in criminal cases is determined by the law prevailing at the time of filing and the penalty provided by law; since the corrected penalty for violating Section 46 exceeds six years, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction.