Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Facts:
Jose Cristobal v. The People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-1542, August 30, 1949, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ozaeta, J., writing for the Court.The criminal information charged Jose Cristobal as accessory to the theft of a diamond ring, the principal accused being Jose Martinez, whose case was later dismissed by the fiscal for insufficient evidence. The trial was held in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which convicted Cristobal and sentenced him to suffer three years, six months, and twenty-one days of destierro, to indemnify Carmen M. de Caro in the sum of P3,000 (with subsidiary destierro in case of insolvency), and to pay costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the award of damages, reducing the indemnity to P2,000 while leaving the principal custodial penalty intact. The Court of Appeals’ factual findings recited that in early April 1945 Mrs. Caro discovered her diamond ring missing; her son Rolando later confessed to the theft and admitted selling the ring to Cristobal for P800. Cristobal admitted buying the ring and initially agreed to let Mrs. Caro redeem it for the amount he paid, but later told her his agent had sold it for P1,200 and could not produce the buyer or give the correct agent address. The ring was never recovered; Mrs. Caro and her lawyer testified that they had told Cristobal the ring was stolen and that Cristobal immediately offered to return it for the price he paid.
Cristobal petitioned the Supreme Court for review on certiorari to examine the Court of Appeals’ judgment. He challenged (among other points) the factual finding that he disposed of the ring after learning it was stolen, asserted double jeopardy based on a prior municipal-court prosecution dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and attacked the valuation and indemnity awarded. The Supreme Court entertained the petition and rendered the decision reproduced below.
Issues:
- Is the Court of Appeals’ finding of fact that petitioner disposed of the ring after learning it was stolen subject to reversal by this Court?
- Did petitioner commit the crime of accessory after the fact by disposing of the ring after acquiring knowledge of the theft?
- Does the prior dismissal in the municipal court for lack of jurisdiction bar the present prosecution on double jeopardy grounds?
- Were the penalty and the amount of indemnity imposed by the Court of Appeals correct, or should they be modified?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)