G.R. No. L-41522 - People vs. Ledesma

Accused Vicente Ledesma was employed as a sales agent for the Conpinco Marketing Company with the authority to sell appliances and receive payments.
On December 18, 1963, he sold one Avegon radio for the amount of P230.00 but failed to remit the proceeds to his employer despite repeated demands.
As a result, he was charged with estafa before the Municipal Court of Victorias, Negros Occidental under Criminal Case No. 439 and was subsequently convicted.

On June 4, 1964, Vicente Ledesma was again charged with estafa in the Municipal Court of Victorias for misappropriating two installments of P19.00 each (totaling P38.00) which were payments received from Flaviana Bernardas on account of a sewing machine.
Like the first instance, he failed to turn over the received amount to the Conpinco Marketing Company despite similar demands.
He was sentenced to suffer three (3) months and one (1) day of imprisonment of arresto mayor, ordered to indemnify the offended party the sum of P38.00, and subjected to subsidiary imprisonment of fifteen (15) days in case of insolvency, in addition to paying court costs.

Accused Vicente Ledesma appealed his conviction in Criminal Case No. 439 and later filed a motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 627 on January 29, 1968.
He argued that his prior conviction in Criminal Case No. 439 constituted a bar to his subsequent prosecution in Criminal Case No. 627 under the doctrine of continued or continuous crimes and the protection against double jeopardy.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 627 and cancelled his bond, prompting the offended party, Conpinco Marketing Company, to appeal the dismissal to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals, while initially delaying decision due to procedural issues, ultimately certified the case to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.
Issues regarding whether the accused-appellee could file a brief were resolved when the Solicitor General furnished his brief, thereby clearing the procedural obstacle.
The main legal issue for the Supreme Court was whether the prior conviction should bar the subsequent prosecution for what was alleged to be a distinct offense of estafa.

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Criminal Case No. 627 based on the accused’s prior conviction in Criminal Case No. 439.
Whether the subsequent estafa charge, involving a misappropriation of a different amount under different circumstances, constitutes the same offense as the prior case or is a distinct criminal act.
Whether the doctrine of continuous or continuing crimes applies to the two separate acts committed on different dates.