Case Digest: Omictin v. CA, G.R. No.148004, January 22, 2007 (Recit Version)

Rule 111 | Criminal Procedure - Prejudicial Question


Facts:  

Private respondent George Lagos was charged by Petitioner Vincent E. Omictin with the crime of estafa for allegedly refusing to return two company vehicles entrusted to him by Saag Phils. 

Lagos filed a motion to suspend proceedings on the basis of a prejudicial question due to a pending case with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) involving the same parties. 

The CA granted the motion to suspend proceedings. The SEC case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799 vesting in the RTCs jurisdiction over intra-corporate disputes.

Issue:

WoN a prejudicial question exists to warrant the suspension of the criminal proceedings pending the resolution of the intra-corporate controversy that was originally filed with the SEC.

Assailed Ruling:

The delay in the delivery of the motor vehicles by the petitioner to Saag Corporation was due to the petitioner's contention that the demand made by Omictin and Atty. Tan was not a valid demand. The petitioner had filed a case with the SEC challenging the appointment of private respondents and the dissolution of Saag Phils.

If the SEC rules that the dissolution of Saag Phils. is proper, or that the appointments of private respondents are invalid, the criminal case for estafa will eventually be dismissed due to the absence of one of the essential elements of the crime.

In light of the existence of a prejudicial question, the CA ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings before the lower court until the termination of the case with the SEC.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute pending before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City have a direct bearing on the criminal case for estafa filed by the petitioner before the Regional Trial Court.

The resolution of the issues raised in the intra-corporate dispute will determine the guilt or innocence of the private respondent in the crime of estafa.

The Court applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and held that the RTC has the primary jurisdiction to determine the issues under contention relating to the status of the domestic corporation, Saag Phils., Inc., vis-Γ -vis Saag Pte. Ltd.; and the authority of the petitioner to act on behalf of the domestic corporation.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered