Vincoy Vs CA
Vincoy Vs CA
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.
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.