Title
Mallari vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 58886
Decision Date
Dec 13, 1988
Consuelo Mallari acquitted of estafa due to double jeopardy; court ruled her prior conviction for the same continuous offense barred retrial.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 58886)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • Petitioner: Consuelo E. Mallari, along with three others, was initially accused of estafa through falsification of a public document.
    • Proceedings:
      • The case was initially filed before the then Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 9800).
      • Due to the other accused being at large, the trial proceeded solely with respect to Consuelo Mallari, who pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
    • Trial Court Decision:
      • After trial, the court found her guilty of the crime charged.
      • Sentence imposed: imprisonment of one (1) year, payment of damages amounting to P1,500.00 to the offended party (Remegio Tapawan), and payment of court costs.
  • Appellate Review and Subsequent Proceedings
    • Appeal in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR:
      • Mallari appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals.
      • The appellate court modified the original penalty from a straight one-year imprisonment to an indeterminate sentence: a minimum of four (4) months and one (1) day and a maximum of two (2) years and four (4) months.
    • Motion for Reconsideration:
      • Petitioner argued that the decision in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR imposed a second jeopardy since she had been previously convicted, sentenced, and probationed in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR for the same offense.
      • The Court of Appeals denied the motion, reasoning that the acts alleged in the two cases were “different and distinct” and thus constituted two separate crimes.
  • Factual Allegations Underlying Both Informations
    • Description of the Offense in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR (First Case):
      • Date and Place: Occurred on or about December 15, 1970 in Manila, Philippines.
      • Offense: The accused, including Mallari and others, allegedly executed a scheme to defraud Julia S. Saclolo through falsification of a public document.
      • Modus Operandi:
        • Obtained possession of T.C.T. No. 42694 issued to Leonora I. Balderas.
ii. Falsely represented that Leonora was in urgent need of money and offered her property as collateral for a loan of P1,500.00. iii. Forged a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage acknowledged before Notary Public Celestino Hallazgo, thereby misappropriating the loan.
  • Description of the Offense in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR (Second Case):
    • Date and Place: Similarly took place around the 15th of December, 1970 in Manila.
    • Offense: The accused, again including Mallari, allegedly defrauded Remegio G. Tapawan by falsification of a public document.
    • Modus Operandi:
      • Involved the obtaining of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42695 belonging to Leonora I. Balderas.
ii. Fraudulently induced Tapawan into lending money by falsifying a deed of mortgage, once again executed by the same notary official, Celestino Hallazgo. iii. Although involving two victims—Tapawan and Julia Saclolo—the criminal act was founded on a single deceptive transaction regarding a loan totaling P3,000.00.
  • Double Jeopardy Context and Legal Background
    • Constitutional Provision:
      • Section 22, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (reiterated as Section 21, Article III in the 1987 Constitution) prohibits placing a person twice in jeopardy for the same offense.
    • Double Jeopardy Defense:
      • Requirements for raising the defense include:
        • The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
ii. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. iii. The subsequent charge must be for the same offense.
  • In this case, the petitioner’s prior conviction in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR satisfies the first two requisites.
  • Comparative Analysis of the Two Informations
    • Similarities:
      • Both Informations are based on the same series of acts committed on the same date, at the same location, and with the same fraudulent intent.
      • The series of acts constitute a continuous chain of events driven by a single criminal resolution.
    • Contention by the Appellate Court:
      • The appellate court maintained that the acts in the two cases were distinct, thus qualifying as separate crimes.
      • The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the acts are part of one continuous criminal enterprise.

Issues:

  • Determination of Double Jeopardy
    • Whether the petitioner, having been previously convicted in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR for the crime of estafa through falsification of public document, is being subjected to double jeopardy by facing charges in CA-G.R. No. 19849-CR for what appears to be the same transaction.
    • Whether the second Information, despite its alleged differences in the factual narration and victims, constitutes an offense identical in criminal intent and transaction to the one already adjudicated.
  • Unity of Criminal Intent and Transactions
    • Whether the series of acts committed by Mallari should be considered as one continuous or continuing offense, even though different victims were involved.
    • The legal sufficiency of distinguishing the acts as “different and distinct” versus recognizing them as a single criminal design.
  • Validity of the Appellate Court’s Ruling on Separate Offenses
    • Whether the appellate court erred in its observation that the crime charged in the second Information was distinct from the first.
    • The proper application of the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy in circumstances involving continuous crimes.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms