Title
Sy y Lim vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-37494
Decision Date
Mar 30, 1982
Manuel Sy acquitted of unfair competition but charged with trademark infringement; Supreme Court ruled no double jeopardy, granted preliminary investigation for new charge.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219157)

Background of the Case

The petitioner was charged with a violation of Article 189, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, which relates to unfair competition. The information alleged that between June and October 1970, in the municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, Lim unlawfully sold inferior hand pumps labeled as "JETMATIC DRAGON HAND PUMP," deceiving the public and defrauding Sea Commercial Company, Inc. The trial court ultimately acquitted Lim of unfair competition but found prima facie evidence of a violation of Article 188, charging that Lim had unlawfully sold goods marked with a registered trademark that he knew had been fraudulently used.

Motion to Quash and Court Proceedings

Following the trial court's decision, the Provincial Fiscal filed the second information against Lim for violation of Article 188, paragraph 2. Lim subsequently filed a motion to quash this information, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to absence of preliminary investigation, violation of due process, and potential double jeopardy. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals denied his motion.

Arguments Raised by Petitioner

In his appeal, Lim assigned multiple errors to the Court of Appeals decision, primarily claiming double jeopardy because he had already been acquitted of unfair competition. He contended that both informations charged the same offense, as the only difference was the formal designation of the offense and the mention of a registered trademark in the second information.

Legal Principles and Analysis

The petitioner’s argument centered on interpretations of double jeopardy, as provided under the Constitution and relevant procedural rules. He asserted that the core nature of the offenses charged under both informations is the same, primarily arguing that the allegation regarding the trademark being registered does not constitute a separate element under Article 188. However, the trial court had determined that the first information did not correctly charge trademark infringement while recognizing grounds for a new information under the jurisdiction outlined in the Rules of Court.

Double Jeopardy and Trial Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court outlined that no double jeopardy arose because Lim had not yet been acquitted or convicted regarding the charge of infringement under Article 188, as proper judgment was never rendered on this matter; the first information merely represented an acquittal on unfair competition without addressing trademark infringement. Additionally, the trial court's proceedings followed the protocols allowing amendment of charges

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.