G.R. No. 19857 - Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board

On July 21, 1992, eight informations (Criminal Cases Nos. C‑40482 to C‑40489) were filed in Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, Kalookan City.
The petitioners, Geruncio H. Ilagan, Claro Pinon, and Rosendo Pinon, were charged as co‑conspirators in the crime of estafa.

The information alleged that during the period from July 1990 to December 1991 in Kalookan City, the accused—acting respectively in the capacities of President, Finance Manager, and Sales Director of the Apple Realty and Development Corporation—defrauded the Hometrust Development Corporation.
It was asserted that by falsely representing themselves as authorized agents entitled to collect payments from prospective lot and house buyers, the accused misappropriated and converted to their own use the total amount of P353,500.00 received on behalf of Hometrust Development.
The allegations detailed that the accused were aware they lacked authority to collect or issue receipts and that, upon receiving repeated demands, they failed to remit the funds to the corporation.

These informations expanded the scope of the allegations to include individual lot buyers as complainants (e.g., Erlinda Sayasa, Rogelio Damasco, Gina G. Teston, Filomena Lanozo, Natividad Diaz, Florida Gargoles, and Marcelita Ranara).
Each case alleged that during various periods (mainly between May 1991 to November 1991) the accused, though duly appointed as agents, collected payments from buyers without proper authority.
The accusations emphasized that the collected funds (ranging from amounts such as P24,000.00 up to P169,000.00) were misappropriated instead of being remitted to Hometrust Development, thus constituting distinct instances of estafa against different victims.

On July 30, 1992, petitioners moved to quash the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. C‑40483 to C‑40489 on the ground of duplicity of offenses charged therein.
The trial court denied the motion, holding that each information, though involving similar allegations, charged one single offense per case with different private complainants and distinct transactions.
Petitioners subsequently sought the extraordinary writ of certiorari and prohibition from the Court of Appeals to overturn this ruling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, clarifying that each information was discrete and that the alleged duplicity did not exist.

Petitioners contended that all offences stemmed from a single act of misappropriation against Hometrust Development and should be considered one criminal offense.
They argued that the inclusion of individual lot buyers’ names and the amounts therefrom in Criminal Case No. C‑40482 was an unnecessary addition, leading to duplicity.
The lower courts maintained that the offences against Hometrust Development and the lot buyers were different due to distinct modes of commission and differing elements—namely, abuse of confidence versus deceit.

Whether the eight informations charged one single offense or constituted eight distinct crimes of estafa.
Whether the filing of multiple informations by the prosecutor amounted to an abuse of discretion resulting in double jeopardy.

Whether the motion to quash should have been granted on the ground that the informations were duplicitous.
Whether the proper application of Rule 117 was observed in limiting the motion to the stated factual and legal grounds.