G.R. No. 205998 - Siy vs. Tomlin

The petitioner, Manuel Sy y Lim, was charged in connection with selling hand pumps that allegedly mimicked the appearance of those manufactured and sold by Sea Commercial Company, Inc.
The period in which the alleged offenses occurred was from June 1970 to October 1970 in Valenzuela, Bulacan.
In the original information, the petitioner was charged under Article 189, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code for unfair competition. The allegation was that he:

Sold or offered hand pumps of inferior quality labeled “JETMATIC DRAGON HAND PUMP” at a lower price.
Gave his hand pumps the general appearance of those legitimately sold by Sea Commercial Company, Inc., including the use of embossed markings and design features.

Acquitted the petitioner of the charge of unfair competition.
Determined that there was prima facie evidence indicating that the petitioner had, however, committed an offense under Article 188, paragraph 2 (infringement of trademark).
Ordered the Provincial Fiscal to file a corrected or “proper” information for violation of Article 188, paragraph 2.

The new information specifically charged the petitioner with infringing the trademark, alleging that he knowingly sold hand pumps with a fraudulent “JETMATIC DRAGON HAND PUMP” mark.
It was emphasized that the hand pumps bearing the trademark were of inferior quality and intended to deceive or defraud both Sea Commercial Company, Inc. and the public.

The new information did not conform to the prescribed legal form.
The alleged lack of a preliminary investigation deprived him of his due process rights.
The filing of the second information would subject him to double jeopardy since he had already been acquitted on related grounds (the offense of unfair competition).

Both informations charged the same underlying act – the fraudulent imposition of a trademark’s appearance on his hand pumps.
The only apparent difference was an additional allegation regarding the registration of the trademark in the second information.
Since registration was not an essential element of the crime under Article 188, paragraph 2, charging him anew for essentially the same act would amount to double jeopardy.

The absence of a prior preliminary investigation for the second information.
That the amendment of charges, under the applicable Rules of Court, should not prejudice his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

The proceedings reached the appellate level with the petitioner assigning errors that the Court of Appeals and, eventually, the Supreme Court had to address.

The trial court had declared insufficient evidence to convict under the first information for trademark infringement but was convinced that a mistake in charging had been made.
It reiterated that, despite the acquittal for unfair competition, the evidence supported a prosecution for the trademark infringement offense.
The case was subsequently raised before the Court of Appeals and then reviewed by the Supreme Court, where the issues of double jeopardy and procedural propriety were meticulously analyzed.

Whether charging the petitioner under a second information for infringement of trademark (Article 188, paragraph 2) constituted double jeopardy, given the prior acquittal for unfair competition in the first information.

Whether the amendment from the first information (charged under Article 189, paragraph 1) to the second information (charged under Article 188, paragraph 2) was permissible under the Rules of Court.
Whether the alleged mere difference in the statement regarding trademark registration was sufficient to differentiate the offenses.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a new preliminary investigation for the second information.
Whether the trial process, as modified by the trial court’s order, conformed to constitutional due process by ensuring the accused was properly informed of the charges against him.

Whether the allegation that the trademark was registered is an essential element of the offense charged under Article 188, paragraph 2.
The impact of this element on the double jeopardy argument.