SAAVEDRA v.

DOJ 226 SCRA 438

Facts:
 In July 1987, Private respondent Ramos sold their shares of stocks of Pine Philippines Incorporated to petitioner Saavedra
for 1.2M payable in installments, with an automatic rescission clause in case any installment was not paid on its due date.
 By September 1987, there was unpaid balance. The petitioner withheld payment because the sellers failed to comply with
their warranties; it was, however, deposited in escrow subject to release once the warranties were complied with.
 In November, petitioner filed a civil complaint for damages against Ramos alleging that he (petitioner) was the President
and principal stockholder of PPI.
 Private Respondent Ramos questioned petitioner's capacity to sue in behalf of PPI, claiming that petitioner ceased to be its
president when the sale of the shares of stock to him was automatically rescinded on 15 September 1987.
 Ramos and group executed a document “Rescission of MOA” and filed a case with SEC to declare it valid and legal.
 Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the SEC; denied; went to SC; SC upheld the
jurisdiction of the SEC and ruled that under Sec. 5, par. (b), of P.D. No. 902-A, the SEC has "primary and exclusive"
jurisdiction over the twin issues of ownership and automatic rescission, they being intracorporate disputes. The Civil Case
for damages where then suspended.
 On December, while the SEC case was pending, Ramos filed a perjury (Criminal) case against Saavedra when he declared
that he was the president of PPI in his declaration in the civil case which was then suspended.
 In July 1988, Prosecutor found probable cause for filing information and charging petitioner for perjury, evidenced by a
Secretary’s Certificate dated December 1987 that Ramos was then and there declared as president following the “automatic
revocation of MOA”
 Petitioner went to DOJ to review the resolution but the latter uphold the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for perjury.
Motion to reconsider also was filed but again denied by DOJ; Petitioner then filed for review on certiorari to SC (rule 65)
 Petitioner contends that respondent DOJ gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the findings of the Provincial
Prosecutor that he made a "deliberate assertion of falsehood" on the basis of the conclusion that automatic rescission had
set in. For, the jurisdiction to rule on that question of automatic rescission is lodged with the SEC. Since the issue has not yet
been resolved, the DOJ should have deferred the proceedings.

Ruling:
 Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot and will not determine a controversy involving a question which is
within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal 12 having been so placed within its special competence under a
regulatory scheme. In such instances the judicial process is suspended pending referral to the administrative body for its
view on the matter in dispute.
 Consequently, if the courts cannot resolve a question which is within the legal competence of an administrative body prior
to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, especially where the question demands the exercise of
sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative agency to
ascertain technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the
regulatory statute administered, 14 much less can the Provincial Prosecutor arrogate to himself the jurisdiction vested
solely with the SEC
 Public respondent DOJ in attempting to justify the action of the Provincial Prosecutor avers that the latter is empowered to
make a preliminary ruling on the matter for the purpose of finding probable cause against petitioner, and that petitioner
may raise the pendency of the issue before the SEC as his defense at the trial proper.
 We are not persuaded. The duty of a prosecutor during preliminary investigation is not only to find evidence to warrant
continuation of the criminal process against an accused. Of equal importance, and it has been repeated often enough, is his
duty to protect the innocent from hasty, expensive and useless trials. 16 This duty, in addition to the "primary and
exclusive" jurisdiction of the SEC, demands the outright termination of the criminal prosecution of petitioner which, at the
very outset, was already bereft of factual and legal bases.
 APPLICABLE PROVISION: Rules of Court - RULE 111 Sec 6 and 7:
o Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition for suspension of the criminal action based
upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition to
suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before the prosecution rests. (6a)
o Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (5a)
 Be that as it may, the outcome of SEC Case No. 3257 is not determinative of whether or not the charge for perjury against
petitioner can prosper. Even if private respondent Ramos succeeds in proving the validity of the automatic rescission of the
sale before the SEC, it does not necessarily mean that the criminal prosecution has basis. 4 elements of the crime of perjury
to be taken into account in determining whether there is a prima facie case, to wit: (a) that the accused made a statement
under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a
willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and, (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law or made for a legal purpose.
 Verily, there is grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the Resolution of 25 July 1988 finding a prima facie case for
perjury against petitioner. A fortiori, the assailed DOJ Resolutions must be struck down as having been issued without
sufficient factual and legal bases. Correspondingly, the Information filed with the Pasig Trial Court pursuant thereto must
likewise be dismissed.