MELBAROSE R. SASOT AND ALLANDALE R. SASOT, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HONORABLE COURT OF OF APPEALS, AND REBECCA G. SALVADOR, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 1…

Sasot versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Melbarose Sasot and Allandale Sasot against the People of the Philippines, the Court of Appeals, and the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1. The petitioners were charged with unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code for manufacturing and selling garment products bearing the appearance of NBA names, symbols, and trademarks. They moved to quash the information, failed, and then went to the Court of Appeals by certiorari, which dismissed their petition. The case matters because it settles two things every bar candidate must know: that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash, and that unfair competition is a public crime, so the capacity of the private complainant to sue is immaterial to the prosecution.

Procedural History

In May 1997, the National Bureau of Investigation investigated a complaint by NBA Properties, Inc. against the petitioners. In its report of June 4, 1997, the Bureau recommended their prosecution for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. On July 15, 1998, Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie Gutierrez recommended the filing of an information, which was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 1.

Before arraignment, the petitioners filed a motion to quash on two grounds: that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, and that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense or over their persons. The trial court denied the motion in its order dated March 5, 1999. The petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition in its decision dated January 26, 2000, holding that certiorari was not the proper remedy and that the grounds raised should be ventilated at trial. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

NBA Properties, Inc. is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the United States of America. It is the registered owner of NBA trademarks and the names of NBA basketball teams, which it uses on hosiery, footwear, t-shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, pajamas, sport shirts, and other garment products.

In May 1997, the National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation upon the complaint of NBA Properties, Inc. It discovered that the petitioners were engaged in the manufacture, printing, sale, and distribution of counterfeit NBA garment products. The Bureau recommended their prosecution for unfair competition.

Rick Welts, as President of NBA Properties, Inc., executed a special power of attorney constituting a law firm as the company's attorney-in-fact, and a complaint-affidavit sworn before a notary public in New York and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. An information was thereafter filed against the petitioners. They moved to quash, arguing that the complaint before the prosecutor was defective, that the complainant was a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and not a registered patentee, and that their own designs were original. The trial court denied the motion, the Court of Appeals dismissed their petition for certiorari, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.
• Whether or not the grounds raised by the petitioners, namely the alleged defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal and the complainant's capacity to sue, are grounds for a motion to quash.
• Whether or not a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines may maintain a cause of action for unfair competition.
• Whether or not the trial court correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case and over the persons of the accused.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it dismissed the petition.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, then in force, enumerates the grounds for quashing an information:

a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused; c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses; f) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.

This is the governing list, and the Court uses it to show that the petitioners' grounds are not among those the rule allows.

Section 3, Rule 112 of the same rules states when a complaint is substantially sufficient:

A complaint is substantially sufficient if it states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by complainant's affidavit and his witnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.

The Court applies this to hold that the complaint before the prosecutor satisfied every requirement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must be denied. It has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice to presenting the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash, and, if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal in the manner authorized by law. There being no special or exceptional circumstances, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition.

On the second issue, the Court found no justification for quashing the information. The grounds the petitioners invoked were not among those enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117. Their arguments instead focused on an alleged defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal, the complainant's capacity to sue, and their own exculpatory defenses. The Court also held that the complaint before the prosecutor was substantially sufficient under Section 3, Rule 112, and that even the absence of an oath does not necessarily render a complaint invalid, since want of oath is a mere defect of form that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits. The complaint-affidavit was sworn before a notary public and authenticated by the Philippine Consulate, and the prosecutor enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties.

On the third issue, the Court held that the complainant's capacity to sue is immaterial. Unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime, essentially an act against the State, which principally stands as the injured party. Quoting its earlier ruling in La Chemise Lacoste versus Fernandez:

If prosecution follows after the completion of the preliminary investigation being conducted by the Special Prosecutor the information shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines and no longer the petitioner which is only an aggrieved party since a criminal offense is essentially an act against the State. It is the latter which is principally the injured party although there is a private right violated. Petitioner's capacity to sue would become, therefore, of not much significance in the main case. We cannot allow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue.

On the fourth issue, the Court upheld the trial court's jurisdiction. The information was valid on its face, and absent a showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, the trial court should respect his determination.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals committed no grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners' remaining arguments, that the trademarks are not in actual use and that their designs are original, are matters of defense better ventilated and resolved during trial on the merits.

Doctrine

A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The accused must enter a plea, go to trial, present the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash, and appeal any adverse decision in the manner authorized by law.

The grounds for a motion to quash are limited to those enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. A defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal and the complainant's capacity to sue are not among them.

Unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime, essentially an act against the State, which is principally the injured party. The capacity of the private complainant to sue is therefore immaterial to the prosecution.

Want of an oath in a complaint is a mere defect of form that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, and the records were remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24, where the criminal case was then assigned, for further proceedings with reasonable dispatch.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash, and unfair competition is a public crime, so the complainant's capacity to sue is immaterial. Examiners use this case in criminal procedure on the remedy against a denied motion to quash and the limited grounds under Rule 117, and in intellectual property on the standing of a foreign corporation to complain of unfair competition.