Separate Decisions of the Court of Appeals are sought to be reversed through these two appeals by Certiorari  filed by petitioners Ko Bu Lin (in G.R. No. L-57170), and Lolita Bañares (in G.R. No. L-53663), involving Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on Estafa, and the doctrine of double jeopardy.

The Petitions were initially denied by the former First Division of the Court, but, on Motions for Reconsider­ation filed by both petitioners, and after referral of both cases to the Court en banc due to failure to get the concurrence of five members within the Division, the Court en banc resolved to give due course.

G. R. No. L-57170

Petitioner Ko Bu Lin was charged in Criminal Case No. 6959 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XL, with Estafa under the following Information: 

"That on or about the 5th day of May, 1970, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Go Song Hiap in the following manner, to wit: the said accused, by means of false manifestations and fraudulent representations which he made to said Go Song Hiap to the effect that he (accused) has 23,000 bags of cement for sale of 94 pounds each in his bodega at 1332 Tayabas, Manila, all valued at P33,500.00; that said bags of cement are ready for delivery any­time to the buyer upon demand and that he (accused) is willing to issue Check No. BA-HO 345479A which has sufficient funds in the bank of Asia as a cover check to guaranty the quality of cement which Go Song Hiap may encash on May 25, 1970 if the cement is not of the standard quality, and by means of other deceits of similar import, in­duced and succeeded in inducing the said Go Song Hiap to deliver the sum of P33,500.00 as payment for the said 23,000 bags of cement, which said ac­cused received well knowing that he has no cement and that he has no sufficient money in the bank to back up his cover check which sums of money, once in his possession, in spite of repeated demands made upon him to return the said amount of P33,500.00 or deliver the 23,000 bags of cement, he refused and failed, and still fails and refuses to do so, and instead misappropriated, misapplied and converted the said amount to his personal use and benefit, to the damage and pre­judice of the said Go Song Hiap in the aforesaid sum of P33,500.00, Philippine currency."

After trial, the lower Court convicted petitioner of Estafa under Article 315, 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (by issuance of bouncing checks).

On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but penalized the accused instead under Article 315, 2(a) (thru false pretenses or similar deceits). Two Motions for Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner interposed the instant appeal by Certiorari.

G.R. No. L-53663

Petitioner Lolita Bañares was accused of Estafa in Criminal Case No. 1772 of the Court of First Instance, Negros Occidental, Branch III, under an Information read­ing: 

"That on or about, the 2nd and 3rd week of June, 1974, in the municipality of San Enrique, province of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, having received in trust from one Dolores Centeno assorted jewelries worth P92,100.00 on con­signment basis, with the condition to return the same within one (1) month from receipt thereof if unsold or the money value of the same if sold, far from complying with her said ob­ligation, with abuse of confidence and with intent to defraud, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to her own personal use and benefit the proceeds thereof after said jewelries were sold and disposed of, and in order to cover up her aforesaid unlawful and felonious act, well knowing that she no longer had any deposit with the banks herein below mentioned having already closed her account with said banks issued and delivered to said Dolores Centeno the following postdated checks drawn against the banks hereinbelow mentioned: 

xxx    xxx       xxx       xxx 

xxx    xxx       xxx       xxx 

which checks, when presented for pay­ment, were dishonored and not paid for the reason stated in the foregoing, to the damage and prejudice of said Dolores Centeno in the total amount of NINETY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P92,100.00), Philippine currency."

The Trial Court convicted her of Estafa under Article 315 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code (by issuance of bad checks) as follows: 

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FORE­GOING, the Court finds the accused guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of estafa as so defined and penalized under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 4885 and as further amended by Presidential Decree No. 818 and sentences her to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of Eight (8) years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to Twenty-two (22) years and eight (8) months of reclusion perpetua, as maximum, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Pesos (P92,100.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs."

On appeal, respondent Court modified the lower Court judgment and convicted her instead of Estafa under Article 315, 1(b) (by misappropriation or con­version). The decretal portion of that Decision reads: 

"WHEREFORE, this Court finds the appellant Lolita Bañares GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of ESTAFA as defined and pe­nalized under Article 315, para­graph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of, from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P92,100.00 but without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs."

After denial of her Motions for Reconsideration, the accused filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Petitioner Ko Bu Lin argues that when he pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, he was exposed to the jeopardy of conviction of Estafa by means of false pretenses [Art. 315, parag. 2(a)], or by issuing a check with no funds [ibid., parag. 2(d)], or both; that the Trial Court's findings appearing in the body of the judgment that "he cannot be said to have falsely pretended or fraudulently acted in selling the 23,000 bags of cement to Go Song Hiap" and that "Article 315, No. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to this case" exonerated him from the charge of Estafa thru false pretenses [Art. 315, 2(a)] and was as good as an acquittal although omitted from the dispositive portion of the Decision; that said acquittal is final and the Appellate Court cannot therefore be justified in reopening his acquittal; that because he never disputed said findings of the Trial Court and concentrated his appeal on his conviction under Art. 315, 2(d), nor did the prosecution appeal from said findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the limits of the assigned errors and the facts upon which convict­ion was based, thus depriving him of his day in Court and denying him his right to due process in his appeal.

Petitioner Lolita Bañares contends that the Infor­mation charged her with two separate and distinct of­fenses of Estafa: that defined and penalized under Art. 315, 1(b), Revised Penal Code, or Estafa through mis­appropriation, and that defined and penalized under Art. 315, 2(d), Revised Penal Code, or Estafa through issuance of bouncing checks, thereby, she was already placed in jeopardy of being convicted of both offenses; that when the trial Court chose to convict her of only the Estafa defined and penalized under Art. 315, 2(d), it necessarily "impliedly acquitted" her of Estafa under Art. 315, 1(b), Revised Penal Code; that her said "implied acquittal" of Estafa through misappropriation was immediately final; that she appealed only from the judgment convicting her of Estafa through issuance of bouncing checks, so, what was opened up for review was only the case concerning Estafa through issuance of bouncing checks; that the Court of Appeals went beyond the limits of its power contrary to the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

The decisive issue is whether or not respondent Appellate Court erred in convicting petitioner Ko Bu Lin of Estafa by means of false pretenses [Art. 315, parag. 2(a)], and petitioner Lolita Bañares of Estafa by misappropriation or conversion [Art. 315, parag. 1(b)], when the Trial Courts had allegedly "impliedly acquitted" them of the said offenses when they were respectively found guilty of Estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks [Art. 315, parag. 2(d)].

It must be conceded that the elements of Estafa committed by means of the issuance of bouncing checks /Art. 315, 2(d)/, of which petitioners were convicted by the Trial Court, are different from the elements constituting Estafa by means of false pretenses /Art. 315, 2(a)/, of which Ko Bu Lin was convicted by the Court of Appeals, and from the elements constituting Estafa by means of misappropriation or conversion under Article 315, 1(b), of which Lolita Bañares was convicted by the same Appellate Court.

What is of vital importance to determine is whether or not petitioners were convicted of crimes charged in the Informations as embraced within the allegations contained therein. A reading of the Informations yields an affirmative answer. The Information filed against Ko Bu Lin sufficiently charges Estafa through false pretenses. So does the Information filed against Lolita Bañares sufficiently charge Estafa through misappropriation or conversion. There was no ambiguity in the Informations, and the accused could adequately prepare for their defense. Petitioners having been adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, peti­tioners could be convicted of the said offenses, the same having been proved. Petitioners have not been deprived of any constitutional right.

It is inaccurate for petitioners to contend that the Informations filed against them exposed them to conviction for two offenses. The Informations are not duplicitous ones. The fact is that the different means of commission have been specifically spelled out. As held in the case of Jurado vs. Suy Yan^[1] , per Makasiar, J., with almost identical facts as in the Ko Bu Lin case: 

"The allegations in the information are clear and do not charge the accused with two offenses. As contended by the City Fiscal of Iligan City, the information accuses the defendant of only one estafa committed by false pretenses under paraggraph 2 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, but specifically describes the false pretenses or deceitful acts employed by the accused in perpetrating the offense, namely, his falsely pretending to possess property, credit or business under sub­paragraph (a) of the aforesaid parag­raph 2 of Article 315 and by post­dating a check or issuing such check in payment of an obligation knowing that he had no sufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount of the check, without informing the payee of such circumstances, under sub-paragraph (d) of the same paragraph 2 of Article 315. It is emphasized herein that sub­paragraphs (a) and (d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are two of the five false pretenses or fraudulent acts that can be employed and were ac­tually employed in this case by the ac­cused to commit the one crime of estafa charged against him in the information."

By parity of reasoning, the same can be said in Lolita Bañares' case although separate sections, Article 315, 2(d) and Article 315, 1(b) are involved. 

"We reiterate the earlier juris­prudence that where an offense may be committed in any of the different modes and the offense is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, the indictment is sufficient, notwith­standing the fact that the different means of committing the same offense are prohibited by separate sections of the statute. The allegation in the information of the various ways of committing the offense should be regarded as a description of only one offense and the information is not thereby rendered defective on the ground of multifarious­ness." (ibid.)

One of the earlier jurisprudence referred to is U.S. vs. Tolentino^[2] , which held: 

"It is a well-settled rule in consi­dering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of several nodes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, provided that it be such as to cons­titute the substantive offense."

Besides, the appellants having gone to trial, without objection, on Informations they allege as charging duplicitous offenses, they may be deemed as having waived the right secured to them under Section 12, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.^[3]

Invocation of the constitutional immunity from double jeopardy is misplaced. When the petitioners appealed from the sentence of the Trial Court, they waived the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and threw the whole case open to the review of the Appellate Court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as the law and justice dic­tate, whether favorable or unfavorable to them,^[4] and whether they are made the subject of assignments or error or not.^[5]  Petitioners' appeal conferred upon the Appellate Court full jurisdiction and ren­dered it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty and cite the proper provision of the penal law.^[6] Also explicit in this regard is Section 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court: 

"Power of appellate Court on appeal. - Upon appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance, the appellate court may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the case to the Court of First Instance for new trial or re-trial, or dismiss the case." (Emphasis supplied)

A case in point is that of Lontoc vs. People,^[7]  aptly cited by the Solicitor General. In that suit, the accused was charged with having committed the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document. The Court of First Instance found him guil­ty only of Falsification thru Reckless Imprudence and sentenced him to suffer 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals which, after reviewing the evidence, found him guilty of the original charge of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document and sentenced him to an indeter­minate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years, 8 months, and 1 day of prision mayor, and to pay a fine of P200.00 and costs. When the case was elevated to this Tribunal on Petition for Review on Certiorari, the main question of law involved was: "could the Court of Appeals legally find the appellant guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document as originally charged against him after the lower Court had found him guilty only of Falsification through Reckless Imprudence, thereby acquitting him of Estafa?" This Court affirmed the finding of the Court of Appeals and held: 

"We find that the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting the petitioner of the higher offense with which he was charged in the Court of First Instance is in accordance with the ruling laid down by this Court in a long line of decisions, from U.S. vs. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83, to People vs. Olfindo, 47 Phil. 1, which has been embodied in statutory form in section 11 of Rule 120 above quoted. The reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appel­late court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant. This rule is too well known for any lawyer to ignore. But if the numerous cases wherein this Court has convicted the appellants of a higher offense or has increased the penalty imposed on them by the trial court, have not been seen by some lawyers for accused-appellants as a red light indicative of danger or risk, let the bitter experience of the herein petitioner serve as a perpetual reminder to others to heed the moral lesson of the proverbs with which this opinion is prefaced."^[8]

but modified the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals for being erroneous.

The proposition submitted by petitioner, Lolita Bañares, that the appeal to the Court of Appeals is "limited only to the judgment or sentence of con­viction and does not affect the implied acquittal, which was immediately final", is unavailing. The power of the Appellate Court on appeal cannot be thus constricted. Petitioner's appeal was unqua­lified. 

"x x x the rule is well-settled that when an accused unqualifiedly appeals from a sentence of the trial court; as did the accused in this case he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable to the appellant or not."^[9]

There was no implied acquittal to speak of, only one offense of Estafa having been sufficiently charged in each Information. The Information in the Ko Bu Lin case merely speaks of a "willingness" to issue "a cover check to guaranty the quality of the cement". While the Information in the Bañares case alleges that the checks were issued "to cover up a felonious and unlaw­ful act." Absent is an essential element in Estafa through the issuance of bouncing checks that the check be issued in payment of an obligation. But even if there were implied acquittal, following the Lontoc case, the pertinent excerpt from which has been quoted herein-above, there is no impediment to conviction by the Court of Appeals even for a higher offense with which an accused has been charged.

For the same reason neither can petitioner, Ko Bu Lin, successfully claim that he was "denied due process of law in his appeal because the Court of Appeals went beyond the limits of his assigned errors and the facts upon which his conviction under sub-section (d), para­graph 2 of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is predicated." As earlier stressed, whether raised in the assignments of error or not, the entire case is open for full review.^[10]

In sum, respondent Court of Appeals did not err in modifying the respective judgments of the Trial Courts by finding Ko Bu Lin guilty of Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a), and Lolita Bañares under Article 315 (1)(b), both of the Revised Penal Code.

WHEREFORE, denying petitioners' Motions for Reconsideration, both Petitions are hereby dismissed, and the sentences of conviction respectively affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Makasiar and Guerrero, JJ., joins J. De Castro in his dissenting opinion.

Abad Santos, J., the petition as are based on frivolous grounds and should have been summarily dismissed. They raised questions similar to how many angels can stand on the point of a needle.

Aquino, J., no part.

---

^[1] 38 SCRA 663 (1971).

^[2] 5 Phil. 682 (1906).

^[3] Sec. 12. Duplicity of offense. - A complaint or information must charge but one offense, except only in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offense.

^[4] People vs. Carreon, 115 Phil. 245 (1962).

^[5] U.S. vs. Abijan, 1 Phil. 83 (1902); People vs. Olfindo, 47 Phil. 1 (1924); Suy Sui vs. People, 92 Phil. 685 (1953).

^[6] U.S. vs. Abijan, supra.

^[7] 74 Phil. 513 (1943).

^[8] 74 Phil. 519-520.

^[9] People vs. Carreon, 115 Phil. 242, 245 (1962).

^[10] Suy Sui vs. People, supra.

tags