Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43790)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
The City Fiscal and private prosecutors petitioned the Supreme Court to set aside the City Court of Silay’s December 19, 1975 order dismissing Criminal Case No. 7124‑C ("People vs. Ernesto de la Paz, et al.") and to direct the respondent court to continue the trial. The Office of the Solicitor General, per the record, filed a comment joining the People’s prayer to reverse and remand.
Charges and Accusation
Private respondents were charged with falsification by private individuals and use of falsified document under Paragraph 2, Article 172, R.P.C. The Information alleged that on January 4, 1974, the accused, with intent to gain and to cause damage, altered or falsified sugar-cane weight report cards (tarjetas), increasing the aggregate recorded weights for cane cars Nos. 1686, 1743 and 1022 and thereby causing damage to Hawaiian Central and other cane planters in the amount alleged (P618.19).
Prosecution Evidence Presented at Trial
Prosecution testimony and exhibits showed that, on the date in question, the three accused scalers on duty wrote lower weights on certain tarjetas (Exhibits B‑1, C‑1, D‑1, totaling 26.765 tons) but did not submit those to the laboratory section. Instead, allegedly substituted tarjetas showing higher weights (Exhibits B, C, D, totaling 27.160 tons) were submitted to the laboratory section — an increase of 5.155 tons. Exhibits B‑1, C‑1 and D‑1 were later taken by a prosecution witness from the wife of one accused.
Defense Motion and City Court Order of Dismissal
After the prosecution rested, the accused moved for dismissal on insufficiency of evidence. The City Court (Judge Alon) granted the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio on December 19, 1975. The trial court’s reasoning: to convict under Paragraph 2, Article 172, the act must fall within one of the eight acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171. The court concluded that the act of substituting tarjetas with higher weights could not be placed under any of those enumerated acts. The court invoked the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius and the rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused, and therefore found the acts did not constitute falsification; consequently, there was no use of a falsified document.
Positions of Parties Before the Supreme Court
Private respondents contended the City Court’s dismissal was correct and argued that reversal would subject them to double jeopardy. The People (and the Solicitor General in comment) argued dismissal occurred on motion of the accused, and therefore the plea of double jeopardy was not tenable; they urged reversal and remand for further proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Double Jeopardy and Precedent
The Supreme Court rejected the Solicitor General’s contention that double jeopardy was unavailable. The Court explained that the dismissal occurred after the prosecution rested its case and was an unconditional dismissal on the merits, equivalent to an acquittal. Precedent was invoked to show that when a trial court dismisses after the prosecution has presented evidence and the accused moves for dismissal on grounds of insufficiency, such dismissal constitutes an acquittal that triggers double jeopardy protection (citing People v. Acosta and Catilo v. Hon. Abaya). The Court distinguished cases relied upon by the Solicitor General where dismissals were provisional, conditional, or made with express consent of the accused and thus did not bar further prosecution.
The Court identified the essential elements present here that invoke double jeopardy: (1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance; (2) a court of competent jurisdiction; and (3) an unconditional dismissal after the prosecution had rested its case amounting to an acquittal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Merits of the Falsification Charge
Although the Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s factual theory was that the accused made false entries in the tarjetas (not that they literally substituted counterfeit tarjetas), the Court determined that the act of making false statements in the tarjetas is an act of falsification of a pr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-43790)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review filed jointly by the City Fiscal of Silay City, Marcelino M. Paviera, and the Law Offices of Hilado, Hagad & Hilado (private prosecutors), seeking reversal of the City Court of Silay's order dated December 19, 1975, which dismissed Criminal Case No. 7124‑C ("People vs. Ernesto de la Paz, et al.") and directing the respondent court to continue the trial.
- Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment (October 13, 1976) joining the Petitioner's prayer to reverse the respondent court's order, in compliance with the Court's Resolution of July 21, 1976.
- Petition treated as a Special Civil Action after all parties submitted their pleadings and comments.
- Supreme Court decision rendered by Justice Muñoz Palma on December 9, 1976 (G.R. No. L‑43790); reported 165 Phil. 847; 73 OG 3835 (May, 1977).
Parties
- Petitioner: People of the Philippines, with City Fiscal Marcelino M. Paviera and private prosecutors (Law Offices of Hilado, Hagad & Hilado) as movants.
- Respondents: The City Court of Silay (Judge Reynaldo M. Alon) as the issuing court; private respondents charged in the criminal case: Ernesto de la Paz; Pacifico Senecio, Jr. y Sebusa; Romeo Millan y Delejero; Wilfredo Jochico y Magalona.
- Solicitor General: Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., representing the Office of the Solicitor General and filing a comment in support of the Petition.
Facts as Alleged in the Information
- Date and place: Sometime on January 4, 1974, at Hawaiian‑Philippine Company, Silay City, within the jurisdiction of the City Court of Silay.
- Roles: Ernesto de la Paz alleged to be overseer of Hacienda Malisbog (belonging to Deogracias de la Paz); Pacifico Senecio, Jr., Romeo Millan, and Wilfredo Jochico alleged to be scalers of Hawaiian‑Philippine Company.
- Primary allegation: With intent to gain and to cause damage, and by conniving and cooperating, the accused allegedly altered or falsified the sugar cane weight report cards ("tarjeta"), private documents showing the weight of sugarcane belonging to Deogracias de la Paz, by increasing the total actual weight of three specified cane cars:
- Information alleges an increase from 22.005 tons to 27.160 tons for the three cane cars, thereby causing damage to Hawaiian Central and other cane planters amounting to about 8.68 piculs of sugar valued at P618.19.
- Charge: Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified document under Paragraph 2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
Prosecution Evidence Presented at Trial
- Witness testimony and documentary evidence established the following sequence on January 4, 1974:
- Accused Pacifico Senecio, Jr., Romeo Millan, and Wilfredo Jochico, as scalers on duty that day, weighed cane cars Nos. 1743, 1686 and 1022 loaded with sugarcane belonging to Deogracias de la Paz.
- Weight report cards (H.P. Co. Lab. Form No. 1, "tarjetas") reflecting the weights were produced:
- Exhibit B‑1: Car No. 1743 – 8.920 tons.
- Exhibit C‑1: Car No. 1686 – 8.970 tons.
- Exhibit D‑1: Car No. 1022 – 8.875 tons.
- These three cards totaled 26.765 tons (as reflected in the trial court's order).
- Instead of submitting those tarjetas to the laboratory section, the accused allegedly substituted tarjetas showing higher weights which were submitted to the laboratory:
- Exhibit B: Car No. 1743 – 10.515 tons.
- Exhibit C: Car No. 1686 – 10.525 tons.
- Exhibit D: Car No. 1022 – 10.880 tons.
- The tarjetas submitted to the laboratory were alleged to total 27.160 tons, representing an increase or addition noted in the record.
- Exhibits B‑1, C‑1 and D‑1 were later taken by prosecution witness PC SSgt. Rogelio Sevilla from the wife of Pacifico Senecio, Jr.
Motion to Dismiss and Trial Court Ruling (Order of December 19, 1975)
- After the prosecution rested, private respondents moved to dismiss the charge for insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Respondent Judge Reynaldo M. Alon granted the motion and dismissed Criminal Case No. 7124‑C with costs de oficio.
- Trial court's principal reasoning:
- To convict under Paragraph 2, Article 172, an accused must have committed one of the eight acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171, Revised Penal Code.
- The court examined whether the act of substituting tarjetas with higher cane weights fits any of the acts enumerated in Article 171 and concluded it did not.
- Applied the maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other) to exclude substitution as an act of falsification not enumerated in Article 171.
- Emphasized the rule of statutory construction that penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the accused.
- Cited U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil. 599, for the proposition that unless a statute defines an