Vincoy Vs CA

SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 156558. June 14, 2004.]

GEORGE VINCOY, 1 petitioner, vs . HON. COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
PUNO, J
Topic: Double Jeopardy in Administrative Proceedings

Principle:
 It is settled that the dismissal of a case during its preliminary investigation does not
constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and is
not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence but only such
as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and accused
is probably guilty thereof.
Facts:
This is a petition for review of the Decision dated December 20, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR No. 24316 affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 268, in Criminal
Case No. 112432 finding petitioner George Vincoy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under
Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
The Information reads:

“On or about March 14, 1996, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the accused, by means of deceit and false pretenses executed to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, did, xxx defraud Lizah C. Cimafranca and Rolando Flores, in the
following manner, to wit: the said accused represented that he could mobilize thirty (30) dump
trucks and two (2) payloaders for use of the complainant[s] subject to the payment of P600,000.00
mobilization fund and, believing this representation to be true, the said complainants paid and
delivered the said amount to the accused at Banco de Oro Bank, Pasig City Branch, which
representation accused knew well to be false and fraudulent and were (sic) only made to induce
the complainants to give and deliver as in fact they gave and delivered the said amount of
P600,000.00 to the respondent (sic), and accused once in possession of said amount,
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to his own personal use and bene􀀹t, to the
damage and prejudice of the complainants, Lizah C. Cimafranca and Rolando Flores, in the
amount of P600,000.00. Pasig City, May 28, 1997.”
Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence, trial ensued.
In May 1996, Lizah Cimafranca filed a complaint for estafa against petitioner with the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Pasay City docketed as I.S. No. 96-1946. It was, however, dismissed in a
Resolution dated August 21, 1996 on the ground that petitioner’s obligation was purely civil in
nature and for complainant’s failure to attend the hearings. On October 8, 1996, Lizah
Cimafranca, joined by Rolando Flores, re-filed the complaint charging the same offense against
petitioner with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City which filed the corresponding
information in court, root of the present petition.
Petitioner denied that he received P600,000.00 from the private complainants. He alleged that he
was only given a Banco de Oro Manager’s Check for P400,000.00 which was not even issued in
his name. Failing to notice that the check was not in his name, he issued Official Receipt No. 085
for P600,000.00, not P400,000.00, to include the overprice for complainants’ commission in the
amount of P200,000.00. When he noticed that the check was issued in the name of complainant
Rolando Flores, he arranged for his driver to return the check to complainants for encashment
and to take back O.R. No. 085. As a result, his transaction with the private complainants was
cancelled because they did
not turn over the proceeds of the check to him. The trial court sustained the version of the
prosecution. The trial judge found incredible petitioner’s averment that he failed to notice that the
check in question was not issued in his name.
Issue:
Whether the dismissal of the case filed by Cimafranca constitute a double jeopardy.
Ruling:
No.
The dismissal of a similar complaint for estafa filed by Lizah Cimafranca before the City
Prosecutor’s Office of Pasay City will not exculpate the petitioner. The case cannot bar petitioner’s
prosecution. It is settled that the dismissal of a case during its preliminary investigation does not
constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and is not the
occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence but only such as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and accused is probably
guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be considered equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of
acquittal. Hence, petitioner was properly charged before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig
City which is not bound by the determination made by the Pasay City Prosecutor who may have
had before him a different or incomplete set of evidence than that subsequently presented before
the Pasig City Prosecutor.

Vincoy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vincoy Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 156558. June 14, 2004.]

Topic: Double Jeopardy in Administrative Proceedings

The Information reads:

Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence, trial ensued.

You might also like