The Supreme Court has acquitted Marilyn N. Evalle of theft thru falsification of a commercial document, ruling that her earlier acquittal for falsification of a commercial document barred the second prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy. The Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision that had upheld her conviction.
The Case
Evalle was the accounting head of Tyco Development Corporation, located at Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Olongapo City. On April 26, 2000, she went to the Chinatrust branch in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and presented Chinatrust Check No. 62777 dated April 25, 2000, amounting to PHP 2 million, payable to cash, under Tyco Development's account. The check bore the purported signatures of the company's authorized signatories — Chairman John C.T. Huang and President Cliff C.L. Chang. The check was successfully negotiated and encashed.
When the check was returned to Tyco Development, company officers discovered the withdrawal was unauthorized. Investigation revealed that the signatures of Huang and Chang on the check were different from their signatures in previous transactions. In fact, the signatories never signed checks while in the Philippines, as all outbound checks were sent to Taipei, Taiwan for their signatures. In September 2001, Evalle tendered her resignation, but the vice president rejected it as she was then under investigation.
Two criminal cases were filed against Evalle. The first — Criminal Case No. 39-03 — charged her before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Olongapo City, with falsification of a commercial document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The second — Criminal Case No. 422-04 — charged her before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with theft thru falsification of a commercial document. She pleaded not guilty in both cases.
In the MTCC case, the prosecution presented only a photocopy of the check. Evalle filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which the MTCC granted, resulting in her acquittal for falsification. In the RTC case, the RTC found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of theft thru falsification of a commercial document and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prisión mayor, as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and ordered her to pay Tyco Development Corporation PHP 2 million. The Court of Appeals affirmed this conviction in its September 26, 2014 Decision and January 27, 2015 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 35937. Evalle then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Evalle's prosecution and conviction for theft thru falsification of a commercial document — after her acquittal for falsification of a commercial document — violated her constitutional right against double jeopardy.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court declared that all the requisites for the attachment of a first jeopardy were present: Evalle was charged under informations sufficient in form and substance, both courts had jurisdiction, she was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and she was acquitted in the falsification case when the MTCC granted her demurrer. The Court held that the grant of a demurrer, which results in an acquittal, is final and executory and constitutes a valid termination of the first jeopardy.
The Court further held that the second prosecution was for an offense that necessarily included the first. Because falsification was the necessary means of committing theft in the complex crime charged in the RTC case, Evalle was compelled to relitigate the falsification charge despite her acquittal. The Court stated that her acquittal for falsification should bar any further attempt to prosecute her for an offense in which falsification is alleged as the necessary means of committing another felony.
The Court also declared: "The manner in which Evalle was prosecuted patently subjected her to an unjust and prejudicial ordeal. She was compelled to endure prolonged and successive criminal proceedings as the prosecution fractured a single act giving rise to the same offense into multiple cases, merely by recasting that act as an element of a complex crime or by shifting the theory of prosecution. This Court cannot, and will not, countenance such an oppressive practice."
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The September 26, 2014 Decision and the January 27, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35937 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Marilyn N. Evalle is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 422-04 on the ground of double jeopardy."
By the Numbers
- PHP 2,000,000 — amount of Chinatrust Check No. 62777 at the center of both cases
- April 25, 2000 — date of the check
- April 26, 2000 — date Evalle encashed the check at the Chinatrust branch in SBMA
- 1996 — year Evalle began working for Tyco Development
- September 2001 — when Evalle tendered her resignation, which was rejected
- May 15, 2013 — date of the RTC decision convicting Evalle
- September 26, 2014 — date of the Court of Appeals decision affirming conviction
- January 27, 2015 — date of the Court of Appeals resolution
The Court's Reasoning
The Court applied the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article III, Section 21 of the Constitution and Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. It explained that in cases of complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, double jeopardy attaches when the first offense is a necessary means of committing the second offense. The complex crime of theft thru falsification necessarily includes falsification as an element. Because the first jeopardy — the falsification case — was validly terminated by acquittal when the MTCC granted the demurrer, the prosecution could not relitigate the falsification charge by recasting it as the necessary means of committing theft in a separate, subsequent case.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 216882, Evalle v. People. The decision was penned by an Associate Justice and concurred in by Associate Justices Caguioa and Gaerlan of the Third Division.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.