Mallari v. People of the Philippines
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Consuelo E. Mallari was accused, along with three others, of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document before the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 9800). The case proceeded only against her as the others were at large. She pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party, Remegio Tapawan, in the amount of P1,500.00. Procedural History: Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR), which affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence. In her motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that the decision placed her twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, as she had previously been convicted, sentenced, and probationed for the same offense in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating that the acts in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR were distinct from those in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR, constituting separate crimes. The Petition: Petitioner filed the instant petition for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in denying her motion for reconsideration and that she was being placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Whether the acts constituting estafa thru falsification of public document in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR are the same as those in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The judgment of conviction in C.A. G.R. No. 19849-CR is set aside on the ground of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of double jeopardy: The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy provides that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. For this defense to prosper, three requisites must be present: (1) first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. In this case, the prior conviction by final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR satisfies the first two requisites. The crucial issue is whether the offense charged in both cases is the same. On whether the offenses are the same: The Court found that the Informations filed in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR and CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR, as well as the findings of fact of the appellate court, referred to the same series of acts. These acts constitute a continued, continuous, or continuing offense, defined as a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there were series of acts, only one crime was committed, and thus only one penalty should be imposed. The single intent or impulse was to defraud Remegio Tapawan of P3,000.00 by falsifying public documents, and the involvement of Julia Saclolo was a consequence of the victim Remegio Tapawan having only P1,500.00 at the time. The falsification of the two public documents occurred on the same date, in the same place, at the same time, and on the same occasion, indicating a single criminal design. The Court reiterated the ruling in People v. de Leon (49 Phil. 437), which held that the act of taking two roosters on the same occasion constitutes only one crime of theft, even if owned by different persons. Similarly, in People v. Sales (G.R. No. L-8925, May 21, 1956), it was ruled that when two informations refer to the same transaction, the second charge cannot prosper due to double jeopardy. Therefore, having been convicted in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR, petitioner could no longer be held liable for the same crime in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR. The rule against double jeopardy protects against being tried for the same offense, preventing the constant menace of a never-ending charge.
Main Doctrine
A person cannot be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. When a complex crime, such as estafa through falsification of public document, is committed through a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution, it constitutes a single offense, and prosecution for any part of the series of acts bars prosecution for the whole.