Scribd
Upload
68 views

Asistio V

The petitioner Consino Chairperson was charged with violating the Cooperative Code of the Philippines for amassing money through an exclusive dealership with Coca-Cola. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. In the petition, Asistio argued this would subject her to double jeopardy and a higher penalty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply as the initial dismissal was granted on the petitioner's motion. The Court affirmed that an accused can be charged under different laws for the same act as long as each offense involves a distinct element.

Uploaded by

Albertjohn Zamar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views

Asistio V

The petitioner Consino Chairperson was charged with violating the Cooperative Code of the Philippines for amassing money through an exclusive dealership with Coca-Cola. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. In the petition, Asistio argued this would subject her to double jeopardy and a higher penalty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply as the initial dismissal was granted on the petitioner's motion. The Court affirmed that an accused can be charged under different laws for the same act as long as each offense involves a distinct element.

Uploaded by

Albertjohn Zamar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Asistio v. PP, GR No.

200465, 20 April 2010


Asistio v. PP, GR No. 200465, 20 April 2010

FACTS: Petitioner Consino Chairperson of the A. Mabini Elementary School Teachers Multi-Purpose
Cooperative was charged with violation of Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines
(Republic Act No. [RA] 6938) by amassing a substantive amount of money by entering into an exclusive
dealership agreement with Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., (Coca Cola) for the sale of soft drink
products at the school.

After further investigation, Neaiga, representing the Cooperative, filed the Information before the RTC
but the latter dismissed the case for lack 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: W/N REMANDING THE CASE BACK TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS SUBJECT THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND TO HIGHER PENALTY
HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED.
HELD: NO, the dismissal having been granted upon petitioner's instance, double jeopardy did not
attach. The accused-appellee cannot contend that she will be placed in double jeopardy upon this
appeal. It must be stressed that the dismissal of the case against her was premised upon her filing of a
demurrer to evidence, and the finding, albeit erroneous, of the trial court that it is bereft of
jurisdiction.

there is no double jeopardy in this case as the dismissal was with the accused-appellee's consent, that
is, by moving for the dismissal of the case through a demurrer to evidence. As correctly argued by the
People, where the dismissal was ordered upon or with express assent of the accused, he is deemed to
have waived his protection against double jeopardy. In this case at bar, the dismissal was granted upon
motion of petitioners. Doublejeopardy, thus, did not attach.

DOCTRINE: It is a cardinal rule that the protection against double jeopardy may be invoked only for
the same offense or identical offenses. A simple act may offend against two (or more) entirely distinct
and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof of an additional fact or element
which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under one does
not bar prosecution under the other. Phrased else wise, where two different laws (or articles of the
same code) defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the
other, although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime involves some important act
which is not an essential element of the other. Thus, since the Informations filed against petitioner in
this case were for separate and distinct offenses — the first against Article 172 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code and the second against Section 46 of the Cooperative Code (RA 6938)—one cannot be pleaded
as a bar to the other under the rule on double jeopardy. Besides, it is basic in criminal procedure that
an accused may be charged with as many crimes as defined in our penal laws even if these arose from
one incident. Thus, where a single act is directed against one person but said act constitutes a
violation of two or more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, or by a special law and the
Revised Penal Code, as in this case, the prosecution against one is not an obstacle to the prosecution
of the other. (Asistio v. People, G.R. No. 200465, 20 April 2015)
Recite-Ready Summary: Petitioner Consino, Chairperson of a teachers' cooperative, faced charges for
violating Section 46 of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 6938) due to an
exclusive dealership agreement with Coca-Cola for selling soft drink products at a school.

The case was initially filed by Neaiga representing the Cooperative but was dismissed by the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) citing a lack of jurisdiction, stating that offenses with a penalty of imprisonment not
exceeding six years fall under the jurisdiction of first-level courts. Neaiga and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision. Dissatisfied,
Asistio filed a petition challenging the Court of Appeals' ruling.

You might also like