The Board of Directors of IRC approved an agreement with GHB

IRC acquired 100 % of the entire capital stock of GEHI - which would own and operatate a 102
megawatt gas turbine power generating barge in exchance IRC would issue to GHB 55% of the expanded
capital stock of IRC.

IRC would aquire 67 % of the entire capital of PRCI

The Approval Of The Agreement Would Be sent to SEC. The SEC did not receive such agreement,
however they only received a report that IRC failed to make timely public disclosures of its negotiations
with GHB and that some of its directors, traded IRC shares utilizing this material insider information.

Sec investigated on the matter, then issued an order finding that IRC VIOLATED THE RULES IN connection
the old security act when it failed to maketimely disclosures of its negotiations with GHB

The Sec Foundthat The Directors Of Irc Entered Into Transactions Involving Irc Shares Inviolation Of The Revised Securities Act

questioned the authority of the SEC to investigate on saidmatter since according to PD 902-A, jurisdiction upon the matter
was conferred uponthe PED (Prosecution and Enforcement Department) of the SEC 

owever, thisissue is already moot since pending the disposition of the case, the SecuritiesRegulation Code was passed
thereby effectively repealing PD 902-A and abolishingthe PED. 

hey also contended that their right to due process was violated when theSEC required them to appear before the
SEC to show cause why sanctions shouldnot be imposed upon them since such requirement shifted the burden
of proof torespondents.

CA stated that
since there are no rulesand regulations implementing the rules regarding DISCLOSURE,
INSIDERTRADING OR ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED SECURITIES ACT,
the SEC has no statutory authority to file any suit against respondents

Whether or not their right to due process was violated when the SEC denied theparties of their right to cross
examination

Securities are financial instruments issued to raise funds. The primary function of the securities
markets is to enable to flow of capital from those that have it to those that need it.
Securities market help in transfer of resources from those with idle resources to others who
have a productive need for them.
Facts:

SC was asked to revisit its decision in the case involving the death of Leonardo Villa  due to
fraternity hazing. SC modified the assailed judgments of the CA and found respondents guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The
modification had the effect of lowering the criminal liability of Dizon from the crime of
homicide, while aggravating the verdict against Tecson et al. from slight physical injuries.

The appealed Judgment in, acquitting Victorino et al., is hereby AFFIRMED. The appealed
Judgments dismissing the criminal case filed against Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano, are
likewise AFFIRMED. Finally, pursuant to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the Petition in
is hereby dismissed, and the criminal case against Artemio Villareal deemed CLOSED and
TERMINATED.

Respondents Tecson et al., essentially seek a clarification as to the effect of our Decision
insofar as their criminal liability and service of sentence are concerned. According to
respondents, they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its Decision
lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, to slight physical injuries, which
carries a probationable sentence. Tecson et al.contend that, as a result, they have already been
discharged from their criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated.

Issue:

Whether or not the completion by Tecson et al. of the terms and conditions of their
probation discharged them from their criminal liability.

Held:

No.

Ratio:

The finality of a CA decision will not bar the state from seeking the annulment of the
judgment via a Rule 65 petition.

In view thereof, we find that the proper interpretation of Section 7 of Rule 120 must be
that it is inapplicable and irrelevant where the court’s jurisdiction is being assailed through a
Rule 65 petition. Section 7 of Rule 120 bars the modification of a criminal judgment only if the
appeal brought before the court is in the nature of a regular appeal under Rule 41, or an appeal
by certiorari under Rule 45, and if that appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. As it
is, we find no irregularity in the partial annulment of the CA Decision in spite of its finality, as
the judgment therein was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.