SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-14957            October 19, 1961

CO KE TONG, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee.

Emilia C. Saturnino for petitioner-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellee.

DE LEON, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing a petition for habeas corpus.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The antecedent facts are beyond dispute. Petitioner Co Ke Tong was charged with the crime of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 20066), in an information hereunder reproduced:

That on or about the 27th day of June, 1952, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Choa Bei in the following manner, to wit: the said accused received the amount of P42,400.00 from said Choa Bei for the purpose of purchasing for the latter 160 drums of LILY WHITE Petrolatum of 400 lbs. each at P265 per drum under the express obligation on his part to deliver them on or before July 25, 1952, or to return the said amount if unable to purchase the same, but the said accused, once in possession of the said amount, far from complying with his aforesaid obligation and despite repeated demands, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert the same amount to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said Choa Bei in the aforementioned sum of P42,400.00, Philippine currency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Contrary to law.

After due trial, the court found him guilty of the crime charged, and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of not less than 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, nor more than 10 years of prision mayor, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the offended party Choa Bei in the sum of P42,400.00 with legal interest thereon from July 29, 1952 until paid, and to pay the costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, that court, holding the accused guilty of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, affirmed the judgment of conviction. The decision having become final, petitioner commenced the service of his sentence on February 5, 1956 at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinglupa.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Two years thereafter, or on February 15, 1958, petitioner presented before Us a petition for habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-13471), questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila that tried and convicted him, on the ground that "information filed by the fiscal was defective and insufficient as it failed to allege in the body thereof the elements of 'deceit' or 'misrepresentation' and the 'intent to gain' to the prejudice of another, which must necessarily be the efficient causes of defraudation to constitute the crime of estafa." By minute resolution dated February 18, 1958, this Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Motion for reconsideration of that resolution of dismissal was denied.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On September 9 of that same year, the petitioner instituted the present proceedings with another petition for habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, on the same ground that the fiscal's information charging him with the crime of which he had been convicted did not allege the important elements constituting the crime of estafa, and, consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to try the case, so that the proceedings had and the sentence imposed on him were null and void. Responding to the petition, the Director of Prisons filed his "Returned of Writ", and after hearing, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a decision of denial on the ground,among others, that inasmuch as a similar petition had been denied by the Supreme Court for lack of merit, to grant the petition would, in effect, be reviewing, modifying or revoking the order of a superior court on the matter. Not satisfied, the petitioner again has elevated his case here, this time by way of appeal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In disposing of this appeal, it would suffice for Us to simply invoke our resolution in G.R. No. L-13471 dismissing the petition for habeas corpus for lack of merit, inasmuch as the issues raised therein are substantially the same as those presented in the instant case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing the petition is hereby affirmed. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Dizon, J., on leave, took no part.