**Facts:**
1. On December 21, 2000, the People of the Philippines filed two Informations against Dante Tan for violating Rule 36 (a)-1, related to Sections 32 (a)-1 and 56 of the Revised Securities Act, in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 153. These cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 119831 and 119832.
2. The Informations alleged Tan failed to report his beneficial ownership of more than 10% of Best World Resources Corporation (BWRC) shares, which was legally mandated. Specifically, on December 10, 1998, and June 18, 1999, Tan failed to file the necessary reports with the SEC and the Philippine Stock Exchange.
3. Tan pleaded not guilty during arraignment, leading to trials being conducted.
4. On November 24, 2003, the prosecution formally offered its evidence, but the RTC admitted only some of the exhibits, denying others.
5. The People filed a Motion for Reconsideration concerning the inadmissible exhibits, which was denied by the RTC on January 27, 2004.
6. Simultaneously, Dante Tan filed an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File a Demurrer to Evidence.
7. The RTC allowed the filing of Tan’s Demurrer on January 29, 2004, and ordered the People to file an opposition.
8. On February 18, 2004, the People opposed the Demurrer to Evidence, arguing it was merits-based and should not have led to case dismissal.
9. On March 16, 2004, the RTC granted Dante Tan’s Demurrer due to insufficient evidence, effectively acquitting him.
10. The People filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 12, 2004, contesting the RTC’s dismissal orders.
11. On June 14, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition citing double jeopardy due to the acquittal, followed by a denial of the Motion for Reconsideration on February 24, 2005.
12. Dissatisfied, the People advanced a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in precluding further prosecution of Dante Tan due to double jeopardy.
2. If the RTC’s procedural errors during the trial amounted to grave abuse of discretion, warranting the nullification of the demurrer-based acquittal.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Double Jeopardy:** The Supreme Court held that under the constitutional right of double jeopardy, the acquittal or dismissal of charges on merits through a demurrer to evidence cannot ordinarily be appealed. The elements of double jeopardy were fully satisfied: proper jurisdiction, valid Information, arraignment, and an involuntary dismissal on merits.
2. **Exception to Double Jeopardy – Grave Abuse of Discretion:** The Court further clarified exceptions to double jeopardy, such as when the court acts with grave abuse of discretion, but found they were inapplicable. The RTC did not deny the People a fair opportunity to present its case nor acted whimsically or capriciously. The People’s extended procedural journey through multiple presentations, and acceptance of evidence negated any due process violation claims.
3. **On Merits of the Demurrer:** The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC’s evaluation that the prosecution’s evidence lacked sufficient proof of the required ownership and stock classification elements necessary to convict for violation of the securities regulations.
**Doctrine:**
The doctrine established is a strong reiteration of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, emphasizing that a demurrer ruling leading to acquittal represents a final judgment unless exceptional circumstances—specifically, grave abuse of discretion posing due process violations—are proven.
**Class Notes:**
– **Double Jeopardy:** Elements include valid jurisdiction, sufficient Information, valid plea, and case resolution without defendant’s consent.
– **Demurrer to Evidence:** Functions as akin to a motion for judgment of acquittal based solely on prosecution’s evidence sufficiency, and if granted, leads to acquittal precluding appeal due to double jeopardy.
– **Revised Securities Act Relevant Sections**:
– Section 36 (a): Filing requirement of significant stock owners.
– Section 32 (a)-1: Beneficial owner disclosure obligations.
– Section 56: Penalties for failure to comply.
**Historical Background:**
This case occurred amid the backdrop of heightened scrutiny on corporate governance and financial disclosures post-Asian financial crisis, where increased enforcement was evident across financial markets in the Philippines. The Securities Regulation Code (later replaced the Revised Securities Act) sought to strengthen these frameworks by requiring utmost transparency and accountability from significant shareholders.
Leave a Reply