Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > October 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23657. October 29, 1968.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUAN ACOSTA, LUCIANO DE LEON, and DOMINGO PIMENTEL, Defendants-Appellees.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete and Solicitor Salvador C. Jacob, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andres B. Plan and Castro Rosal for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA; DAMAGE CAUSED TO AGENT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE CRIME. — Pedro Miguel, who sold the ring to the accused, was merely an agent, but as such, he had both the physical and juridical possession of the thing received in agency, and could vest title to the buyer of the subject matter of the transaction. He was bound to account for the proceeds thereof and failure on his part to do so, will render him liable for such value to the owner. His possession of the jewelry, therefore, was essentially that of his principal; and any prejudice he suffered by reason of the fraud perpetrated upon him would, likewise, be suffered by his principal. This is elementary, for authorities have invariably held that "the crime of estafa is committed, although the victim was not the owner of the property, but the holder or broker simply, when it appears that the real owner was prejudiced by the disappearance of the property."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEAL FROM ORDER OF DISMISSAL WOULD PLACE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY; INSTANT CASE. — The trial court dismissed the case of estafa against the accused on the ground that one of the essential elements of estafa - damages - is absent, rendering the information defective and the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to convict the accused of the offense charged. The People appealed from this order of dismissal. HELD: The erroneous dismissal of the case, notwithstanding, the error cannot now be remedied by the instant appeal because it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The accused in the case at bar, had been charged under a valid information, before a competent court which had jurisdiction over both the subject-matter and the person of the accused; they had stood trial under a plea of "not guilty", and the prosecution, after the presentation of its evidence, had rested its case; the trial court had thereafter dismissed the case and, that dismissal is on the merits which amounted to an acquittal of said accused. Undoubtedly, to entertain the instant appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy.


D E C I S I O N


ANGELES, J.:


On appeal, by the People, from the "order" of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, dismissing its Criminal Case No. 3993 upon motion of the accused, after the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. It poses but one legal question: Whether or not such appeal — if allowed — would place the accused in double jeopardy.

The proceedings that transpired in the court below are not disputed.

The accused — Juan Acosta, Luciano de Leon and Dominador Clemente — were prosecuted for estafa before the court a quo, under an Information that substantially alleged as follows: that the said accused, acting in conspiracy with one another, thru fraudulent pretenses, obtained from Pedro M. Miguel, a lady’s ring valued at P16,500.00; that accused issued a check for $5,000.00 in payment thereof; and that said check later turned out to be counterfeit, to the damage and prejudice of said Pedro M. Miguel in the amount of P16,500.00.

At the trial, the prosecution presented as its first witness, Pedro M. Miguel, the complainant, who declared as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

That on December 24, 1961, Juan Acosta, Luciano de Leon and Domingo Pimentel approached complainant, telling the latter they were interested in buying jewelry; the complainant showed a ring and told the accused that it belongs to Banang Jaramillo, who entrusted it to him to be sold on commission basis for the price of P17,000.00; the buyers agreed to buy the ring; as payment of the ring, Acosta, de Leon and Pimentel gave complainant a $5,000.00 dollar check drawn against the Banker Trust Company of New York, by Companion Life Insurance Co. payable to the order of accused Dominador Clemente; the accused assured the complainant that the check was good, and relying on that assurance, complainant accepted the check after it was endorsed by Dominador Clemente; after receiving the check, complainant gave the ring to the accused; when the check was presented to the Bank for encashment, it was dishonored because it was fake and counterfeit. The prosecution also presented Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G which were all admitted in evidence.

After the prosecution had rested the case, the respective counsel for the accused moved to dismiss the case. They contended that in view of Pedro M. Miguel’s admission that the ring belonged to Banang Jaramillo, it was the latter who suffered damage and not the complainant, and, therefore, one of the essential elements of estafa — damage — is absent, rendering the information defective and the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to convict the accused of the offense charged.

The assistant provincial fiscal vehemently opposed the motion to dismiss, contending that the owner of the ring need not be the complainant, because in a prosecution for estafa, the complaint may be filed at the instance of the one who has been swindled, whether or not he is the owner of the thing subject of the deceit or breach of faith.

In spite of the fiscal’s opposition, the lower court dismissed the case, holding that while the information mentioned Pedro M. Miguel as the offended party, it appeared from the evidence that he was merely an agent of Banang Jaramillo who was the owner of the ring subject of the estafa. The trial court observed that inasmuch as in estafa, the value of the articles swindled is not only the basis of the penalty but also the amount of indemnity to the offended party, therefore, it becomes necessary to know the real offended party, and to pay Pedro Miguel an indemnity now will run counter to the evidence adduced, and it would go against the wordings of the information. The trial court further opined that to amend the information at that stage of the proceedings will violate the accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

From the order of dismissal, the assistant provincial fiscal has appealed directly to U.S. The Solicitor General, however, has moved for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it would place the accused in double jeopardy. We agree with the Solicitor General. It cannot be seriously questioned that the trial court had grievously erred in his conclusion and application of the law, and in dismissing outright the case. Admittedly, Miguel was merely an agent, but as such, he had both the physical and juridical possession of the thing received in agency, and could vest title to the buyer of the subject matter of the transaction. Miguel was bound to account for the proceeds thereof and failure on his part to do so, will render him liable for such value to the owner. His possession of the jewelry, therefore, was essentially that of his principal; and any prejudice he suffered by reason of the fraud perpetrated upon him would, likewise be suffered by his principal. This is elementary, for authorities have invariably held that "the crime of estafa is committed, although the victim was not the owner of the property, but the holder or broker simply, when it appears that the real owner was prejudiced by the disappearance of the property." (U.S. v. Almazan, 20 Phil. 225; U.S. v. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147, 156-157.)

But then, the erroneous dismissal of the case, notwithstanding, the error cannot now be remedied by the instant appeal because it would place the accused in double jeopardy. The accused, in the case at bar, had been charged under a valid information, before a competent court which had jurisdiction over both the subject-matter and the person of the accused; they had stood trial under a plea of "not guilty", and the prosecution, after the presentation of its evidence, had rested its case; the trial court had thereafter dismissed the case and, that dismissal is on the merits which amounted to an acquittal of said accused. Undoubtedly, to entertain the instant appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy.

WHEREFORE AND UPON THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, this appeal should be, as it is hereby, dismissed, with costs de officio.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., is on official leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25153 October 4, 1968 - ANTONIO CLEMENTE v. BERNARDINO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. L-25461 October 4, 1968 - DY CHUN, ET AL. v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23319 October 7, 1968 - LUZON GLASS FACTORY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24680 October 7, 1968 - JESUSA VDA. DE MURGA v. JUANITO CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-24797 October 8, 1968 - SOUTHWEST AGRICULTURAL MARKETING CORP. v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25724 October 8, 1968 - FILIPRO, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-25573 October 11, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. MINERVA I. PIGUING

  • G.R. No. L-18793 October 11, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO PANTOJA

  • G.R. No. L-25328 October 11, 1968 - NAWASA v. KAISAHAN AT KAPATIRAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA AT KAWANI NG NAWASA

  • G.R. No. L-21488 October 14, 1968 - LUCILA DE LA PAZ v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24802 October 14, 1968 - LIM KIAH v. KAYNEE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25607 October 14, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25332 October 14, 1968 - ARTURO T. UBARRA, ET AL. v. BISCOM EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25032 and L-25037-38 October 14, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. CEMENT WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21957 October 14, 1968 - LAURO ADAMOS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25646 October 14, 1968 - GERVACIO VALENCIA v. CARMEN P. CRISOLOGO

  • G.R. No. L-22226 October 14, 1968 - PACIFIC TUG & SALVAGE CORPORATION OF PANAMA v. RAMON O. NOLASCO

  • G.R. No. L-20158 October 14, 1968 - CANDELARIO ALMENDRAS, ET AL. v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 October 14, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22504 October 14, 1968 - GUARDIANSHIP OF THE INCOMPETENT FEDERICO GARLIT v. ERLINDA G. GARLIT

  • G.R. No. L-25726 October 21, 1968 - CESAR C. ALTAREJOS v. TEODORO K. MOLO

  • G.R. No. L-23454 October 25, 1968 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-22290 October 25, 1968 - EMILIANA MOLO-PECKSON, ET AL. v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26242 October 25, 1968 - IN RE: JAMES Y. NG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26398 October 25, 1968 - ELPIDIO TALASTAS v. CLEMENCO ABELLA

  • Adm. Case No. 501 October 26, 1968 - IN RE: ZACARIAS MANIGBAS

  • G.R. No. L-29648 October 26, 1968 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. NORA VARGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25301 October 26, 1968 - GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. MARTA LIM-JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20973 October 26, 1968 - JOSE BELTRAN v. NICANOR CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-26863 October 26, 1968 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER MACLEOD, INC. v. CO BAN LING & SONS CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25411 October 26, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26332 October 26, 1968 - SWEDISH EAST ASIA CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-27802 October 26, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CENTRAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24377 October 26, 1968 - FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. SOCORRO DANCEL VDA. DE MISA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24632 October 26, 1968 - LEXAL LABORATORIES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-19857 October 26, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAMASO ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-24695 October 26, 1968 - B.J. SERVER v. RICARDO SIKAT

  • G.R. No. L-21756 October 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMAN VIÑAS

  • G.R. No. L-16995 October 28, 1968 - JULIO LUCERO v. JAIME L. LOOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26001 October 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27662 October 29, 1968 - MANILA PEST CONTROL, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 October 29, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16941 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATEO DEL CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 - RESINS INCORPORATED v. AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO PERALTA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20563 October 29, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. COLLECTOR (NOW COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21115 October 29, 1968 - LINKOD JUANE, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-22046 October 29, 1968 - CHU HOI HORN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22252 October 29, 1968 - ELPIDIO MARCELO v. REYNALDO MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23270 October 29, 1968 - MARIA O. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23657 October 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN ACOSTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23645 October 29, 1968 - BENJAMIN P. GOMEZ v. ENRICO PALOMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23893 October 29, 1968 - VILLA REY TRANSIT INC. v. EUSEBIO E. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25888 October 29, 1968 - TIDEWATER OIL COMPANY v. ADELAIDA C. DIONISIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26047 October 30, 1968 - DONATO MATA v. DELFIN B. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26981 October 30, 1968 - IN RE: GLORIA GOMEZ v. RUFINO IMPERIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20398 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24530 October 31, 1968 - BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, ET AL. v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18543 October 31, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GENERAL SALES SUPPLY CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20960-61 October 31, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE ACE LINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23708 October 31, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOCORRO MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22403 October 31, 1968 - LUIS CASTRO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23309 October 31, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24756 October 31, 1968 - CITY OF BAGUIO v. FORTUNATO DE LEON