The Court of Appeals has upheld its decision ordering the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to revive the criminal case filed against a partylist lawmaker and several others for illegal refilling of liquefied petroleum gas tanks belonging to giant oil companies.
In a seven-page resolution, the CA’s Special Former Special Fifteenth Division through Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioners Liquefied Petroleum Gas Marketers’ Association party-list Rep. Arnel Ty, Marie Antonette Ty, Benson Ng, Carlton Ng, and Alvin Ty for failure to raise reasonable ground to warrant the reversal of its ruling issued on June 22, 2018.
“Wherefore, premises considered, the motion is denied for lack of merit. Our decision dated June 22, 2018 stands,” the appellate court declared.
In its June 22, decision, the CA overturned and set aside the order issued by the Pasig RTC which granted the Office of the Prosecutor’s motion to withdraw information against Ty and co-petitioners for violation of Section 3 (d) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 33 or “An Act Defining and Penalizing Certain Prohibited Acts Inimical to the Public Interest and National Security Involving Petroleum and/or Petroleum Products, Prescribing Penalties therefor and for other Purposes.”
The appellate court noted that the trial court failed to give a detailed assessment of the evidence in its order to support the dismissal of the case.
It also ruled that such omission ran counter to established jurisprudence, thus, constitute a grave error on the part of the trial court, and justifying a reversal of the order.
In accordance with the ruling, the CA directed the Pasig RTC to conduct further proceedings in said cases.
In its motion for reconsideration, the petitioners argued that Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution does not provide for the form and content of court decisions.
They pointed out that it is sufficient for the judge to just state the factual and legal basis reached and that the court had considered the evidence.
The petitioners argued that no specific rules apply with respect to the RTC’s disposition of cases, thus, a thorough discussion may not be necessary for the purpose of determining whether there is probable cause to proceed with the case.
However, the appellate court held that the petitioners wrongly relied in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution in seeking the reversal of its decision.
The CA ruled that the said provision applies only to decisions on the determination of courts concerning the merits of cases.
“The orders we annulled are plainly not properly subsumed under the term,” the appellate court said.
Also, the CA did not give credence to the claim of the petitioners that the trial court is not mandated to specifically discuss its rationale for dismissing the case.
“The argument simply cannot prosper. Case law has stressed that where the trial court has to resolve whether or not an information has to be withdrawn, the judge must evaluate the evidence separately and independently, and that should the judge opt to withdraw the information, such assessment must be palpable on the orders face,” the CA ruled.
“If the trial court merely adopts or accepts the prosecution’s findings justifying the withdrawal, its order woul be void,” it said.
Associate Justices Victoria Isabel Paredes and Jhosep Lopez concurred in the ruling.
In 2016, Ty, the owner of Republic Gas Corp (Regasco) refilling plant, was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon City of unauthorized refilling of cooking gas cylinders belonging to giant oil companies — Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp., Petron and Total Gas.
Ty was ordered by the trial court to pay a fine of P50,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The court also ordered the cancellation of Regasco’s license to operate and the forfeiture in favor of the government of the petroleum products seized from its warehouse.
The trial court did not give credence to Ty’s claim that the empty and underfilled branded cylinders seized from their warehouse were actually part of its marketing strategy of offering their own brand in exchange for partially consumed LPG of other brands.
It noted that the accused failed to provide a logical explanation for the presence of the filled LPG tanks of Shell, Petron and Total Gas which were likewise seized from the warehouse.
It also did not give weight to Ty’s argument that he cannot be held criminally liable for the violation committed by the corporation since his function as president was limited to policy making.
The CA said Ty cannot escape liability for the infraction because the by-laws of the corporation itself expressly provide that as president he shall manage and supervise the business affairs of the corporation.
