Asistio vs. People and Nealiga, G.R. No.

200465 – Case Digest

Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of the complaint

or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing
of the complaint or Information, and the penalty provided by law for the
crime charged at the time of its commission.

FACTS:

Petitioner Jocelyn Asistio was charged with violation of Section 46

of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines for allegedly amassing a
substantive amount of money by entering into a dealership deal with
Coca-Cola in her private capacity instead that of A. Mabini Elementary
School Teachers Multi-Purpose Cooperative’s which she then chaired.

After an investigation, Nealiga, representing the Cooperative, filed

the Information before the RTC but the latter dismissed the case for
want of jurisdiction. The RTC opined that offenses bearing a penalty of
imprisonment which does not exceed six years are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of first-level courts. After the RTC denied their motion for
reconsideration, Nealiga and the OSG appealed the case before the Court
of Appeals which reversed the lower Court’s decision. Aggrieved,
Asistio filed the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Which court has the jurisdiction over the case?

RULING:

The Regional Trial Court

The Court held that in criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court
is determined by the averments of the complaint or Information, in
relation to the law prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint or
Information, and the penalty provided by law for the crime charged at
the time of its commission. The Court held that Section 32 of B.P. Blg.
129, as amended, provides that the MeTC has exclusive jurisdiction over
offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years,
irrespective of the amount of fine and RTC if punishable with
imprisonment exceeding six years by virtue of Sec. 20.
 In the instant case, the Supreme Court affirmed CA’s ruling that
the RTC, not the MeTC, has jurisdiction over Asistio’s criminal case for
violation of Section 46 of RA 6938. The Court gave credence to the
submission of the OSG that Section “47” is a clerical error because the
“liability of directors, officers and committee members” is undisputedly
governed by Section 46 of RA 6938, while Section 47 thereof deals with
the compensation of directors, officers and employees.

Following this interpretation, violation of [Sec] 46, therefore, is

punishable by a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), or
imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10)
years or both at the court’s discretion, which under B.P. Blg. 129, shall
be within the jurisdiction of the RTC.