G.R. No. L-58886 Case Digest

G.R. No. L-58886 December 13, 1998

Consuelo Mallari, petitioner

vs People of the Philippines and CA, respondents

Ponente: Fernan

Facts:

Mallari with 3 others was accused of crime of estafa thru falsification of public document before the court of first instance of manila. Upon arraignment, Mallari pleaded not guilty. Trial was conducted then court rendered that Mallari is guilty of the crime charged. 

Mallari then appeal to CA but resulted to CA affirmation of the CFI's decision with modification as to the penalty.

Mallari then motion for reconsideration and contended that the decision placed her in jeopardy of being punished for the same offense. Unconvinced the appellate court denied the motion.

Issue: whether the accused was placed in double jeopardy?

Ruling: requisites of double jeopardy are the following: (1) first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second (2) first jeopardy must have been validly terminated and  (3) second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first

The question lies on the 3rd requisite because obviously 1st and 2nd is present in the case.The information filed in the two cases were compared and showed that they refer to the same series of acts, which is considered as continuing crimes.

Continued crime is a single crime consisting of series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.

The singularity of the offense committed by the petitioner was demonstrated by the fact that the falsification of the two documents were performed on the same date, place and at the time on the same occasion.The petitioner having already been convicted of the complex crime of estafa stands to reason that she can no longer be held liable for the same crime in this case.

Petition granted.