Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

109 Phil 337:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14363. August 31, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Dominador L. Quiroz for Appellee.

F. R. Capistrano and Manuel A. Aguinaldo for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; REQUISITES. — In order that a former judgment may bar a subsequent prosecution, (a) it is necessary that said judgment be rendered: (1) "by a court of competent jurisdiction;" (2) upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (3) after arraignment; (4) "after the defendant had pleaded to the charge," and (b) the second prosecution should be for the "offense charged or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information." (Section 9, Rule 113, Rules of Court.)

2. ID.; ID.; ACQUITTAL IN A FORMER CASE FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF ALLEGATIONS IN INFORMATION TO CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE: DEFENDANT NOT PLACED IN JEOPARDY. — Since, in a former case, the defendant was acquitted because the prosecution failed to allege in the information that the notes described therein were sought to be taken out of the Philippines "without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank", for which reason the charge was rendered "insufficient to constitute an offense for which appellant may be convicted and rendered amenable to the penalty prescribed by law", and said defendant was not then placed in jeopardy of punishment. For this reason, he cannot now be deemed to be twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


An appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the last two (2) paragraphs of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Although the information designates the offense committed by the accused as a violation of Circular No. 37, as implemented by circular No. 60, Sec. 1(b) of the Central Bank in relation to Sec. 34 of Rep. Act No. 265, yet, this is merely the conclusion of the Fiscal but what determines the offense committed are the allegations of facts contained in the information, which as above-stated, constitutes a violation not of Sec. 1(b) of Circular No. 60 but of Section 2(a) of said circular.

"In view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the accused, CARIDAD CAPISTRANO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of circular No. 60, Sec. 2 (a) thereof of the Central Bank of the Philippines in relation with section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 and said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for fifteen (15) days, pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. The one hundred fifty-six (156) pieces of fifty-peso bills, Exhibits ‘A-1’ to ‘156’, inclusive, are hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears, that on October 6, 1956, defendant Caridad Capistrano was accused in Criminal Case No. 3881-P of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, under an information reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned City Attorney accuses Caridad Capistrano of Violation of Circular No. 37, as implemented by Circular No. 60, Section 1(b) of the Central Bank, in relation to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 31st day of March, 1955, in the Manila International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Caridad Capistrano, an outgoing Philippine resident who had booked passage and ready to leave the Philippines for Hongkong through Philippine Air Lines plane, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control concealed in her person, in a sanitary pad (Kotex brand) the following to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"100 pcs. @ P50.00 each — P5,000.00

"Contrary to law, (p. 1, rec., Crim. Case No. 3881-P.)"

Defendant moved to quash the information, but the motion was denied. Then, she entered a plea of not guilty. When the case was later called for trial, defendant admitted the facts alleged in the information, but maintained that said facts did not constitute a crime. In due course, the court, subsequently, rendered a decision convicting the defendant as charged and sentencing her to the corresponding penalty. On appeal, said decision was reversed by this Court in Case G. R. No. L-12724, upon the ground that, for the circular mentioned in the information to be deemed "infringed, it is necessary to allege that the outgoing Philippine resident or transient visitor has taken or is about to take out of the Philippines, Philippine coins and notes . . . without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank. An examination of the information does not show any averment of this element. This omission makes the charge alleged in the in information insufficient to constitute an offense for which appellant may be convicted and rendered amenable to the penalty prescribed by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The dispositive part of our decision in said Case G.R. No. L-12724 (102 Phil., 1025; 54 Off. Gaz. [11] 3499), was as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The appellant is acquitted and the sum of P5,000 confiscated from her ordered returned to her, with costs de oficio."cralaw virtua1aw library

Soon after this decision had become final and executory, or on May 23, 1958, the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal filed the following information, which was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4366-P of the aforementioned court of first instance:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned City Attorney accuses Caridad Capistrano of Violation of Circular No. 37, as implemented by Circular No. 60, Sec. 1 (b) of the Central Bank, in relation to Sec. 34 of Republic Act No. 265, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 31st day of March, 1955, in the Manila International Airport, Pasay City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Caridad Capistrano, an outgoing Philippine resident who had booked passage and ready to leave the Philippines for Hongkong through Philippine Air lines plane, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her person, in a sanitary pad (Kotex brand) the following to writ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

156 pcs. P50.00 each — P7,800.00

(Philippine currency) without having declared the same in the Central Bank currency form and without first securing the necessary license and/or permit to export the same from the Central Bank of the Philippines or any of its authorized agents.

"Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendant moved to quash this information upon the ground of double jeopardy, but the motion was denied. After entering, subsequently, a plea of not guilty, defendant admitted the allegations of said information, and maintained that the act therein described does not constitute a crime. Upon the presentation of the fifty-peso bills mentioned in the information, which were admitted without any objection on the part of the defense, the lower court rendered the decision alluded to at the beginning of this opinion. Hence, this appeal taken by the defendant, who insists that, having been acquitted by this Court in Case G.R. No. L-12724, the government is now barred from prosecuting her once again.

Appellant’s pretense is untenable. Section 9 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When a defendant shall have been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the defendant, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the defendant had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the defendant or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information."cralaw virtua1aw library

In order that a former judgment may bar a subsequent prosecution, it is necessary, therefor, that said judgment be rendered: (a) "by a court of competent jurisdiction" ; (b) "upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction; (c) after arraignment; (d) "after the defendant had pleaded to the charge", and that the second prosecution be for the "offense charged or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information."cralaw virtua1aw library

Pursuant to our decision in case G. R. No. L-12724, the failure of the prosecution to allege in the information in that case that the notes described therein were sought to be taken out of the Philippines "without the necessary license issued by the Central Bank" rendered the charge in said information "insufficient to constitute an offense for which appellant may be convicted and rendered amenable to the penalty prescribed by law." Consequently, defendant was not placed in jeopardy of punishment in said case and, hence, cannot now be deemed to be twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. (People v. Austria, 94 Phil., 897; 50 Off. Gaz., 1967; People v. Lopez, 79 Phil., 658; People v. Reyes, 96 Phil., 927; 51 Off Gaz. [3] 2408; People v. Margatan, 48 Phil., 470; People v. Mirasol, 43 Phil., 860). Indeed, it cannot be said that the offense charged in the case at bar is the same as the one charged in the former information or an attempt to commit the same or a frustration thereof, or includes or is included in the offense charged in said information, no offense whatsoever, from a legal viewpoint, having been, charged therein.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the defendant-appellant. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390