G.R. No. L-6080 December 29, 1953
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Agripina Magat de Soriano and Rodrigo Miranda, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The defendants, Agripina Magat de Soriano and Rodrigo Miranda, were first tried for theft and acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence. Subsequently, they were charged with estafa under an information alleging that they unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to defraud, through false pretense, represented and made it appear that Agripina Magat de Soriano was the payee, Paulina Belches Vda. de Orbina, of a U.S. Treasury Check, causing the Municipal Treasurer of Makati, Rizal, to cash said check and pay them the amount, to the damage and prejudice of the real payee. Before arraignment, the defendants moved to quash the prosecution, arguing double jeopardy, as the previous information for theft alleged they willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously took, stole, and carried away the same check, with intent of gain and without the owner’s consent, and succeeded in cashing it. The court initially denied the motion but upon reconsideration, dismissed the proceedings, holding that both informations had identical facts involving the same persons and amount, constituting double jeopardy. The fiscal appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the subsequent prosecution for estafa places the defendants in double jeopardy after their acquittal for theft based on the same transaction.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal, holding that there was no double jeopardy. The test for double jeopardy is whether the offense charged in the second information is the same as that charged in the first, or whether the accused could have been convicted of the second offense under the allegations of the first information. The crucial allegations of false pretense and representations in the estafa charge were totally lacking in the theft information. The theft information only alleged the taking and cashing of the check, without asserting the false representations that induced the payment. The fact that the theft information mentioned the accused succeeded in cashing the check does not necessarily imply false representations, as the treasurer could have acted with full knowledge or connivance. The offense is determined by the facts alleged in the information, not by the crime proved at trial. Since the estafa described in the second information could not have been convicted under the allegations of the first information, the defendants were not in jeopardy of punishment for that offense. The record was ordered returned for further proceedings.