THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLE, VS. MARIO ESTEBAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS; ERNESTO CAMARAO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The defendant-appellant, Ernesto Camarao, was charged, with others,
in the Court of First Instance of Rizal in criminal case No. 4153, with
a violation of Article 166 in relation to Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code, in that during the period between
January to September, 1952, in the municipality of Caloocan, province
of Rizal, and continuously elsewhere in other places within the
Philippines, said appellant and his co-accused, conspiring and
confederating together, unlawfully made, forced, falsified and
counterfeited certain obligations or securities of the Government of
the United States, specifically enumerated in the information. After
trial, the case was dismissed against the appellant for insufficiently
of the evidence. Subsequently, the appellant and his co-accused were
charged in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur in our separate
informations docketed as criminal cases Nos. 1674, 1675, 1676 and 1677,
with a violation of Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code, the subject
of said informations being respectively Treasury Warrant No. 28055510,
dated June 25, 1952, for $918.55; Treasury Warrant No. 28035477, dated
June 25, 1952, for $950.60; Treasury Warrant No. 28035500, dated June
25, 1952, for $915.63; and Treasury Warrant No. 28035480, dated June
24, 1952, for $914.35. the appellant filed a motion to quash these
informations on the ground of double jeopardy, but the same was denied
by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur in its order dated January
4, 1954. From this order the present appeal was taken by the appellant.

The appellant contends that the offense charged in the four
informations filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur are the
same as and included in the offense charged in criminal case No. 4153
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in which the appellant was
acquitted, it being argued in the latter case that (1) the place of the
commission of the offense was alleged to be Caloocan, Rizal, and
“continuously elsewhere in other places within the Philippines”, while
in the subsequent four criminal cases the offenses were alleged to have
been committed in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and also elsewhere within the
Philippines; and (2) the dates of the commission of the offenses in the
four criminal cases filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur
are embraced within the period designated in criminal case No. 4153 of
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, the offenses charged in the later
four information’s having been allegedly committed on or about August
11, 1952; August 13, 1952; July 25, 1952; and July 28, 1952, whereas
the offense charged in criminal case No. 4153 of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal was allegedly committed between January to September,
1952.

It appears that the subject matters of criminal case No. 4153 of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal were obligations or securities of the
Government of the United States bearing Serial Nos. 28035461, 29035488,
28035470, 28035480, 29100700, 29100600, 2835479, 28039537, 29100800,
29357051, 28039529, 29100760, and 28039531; whereas the obligations or
securities of the Government of the United States alleged to have been
forged, falsified or counterfeited in three of the four information’s
filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur are different and
bear the Serial Nos. 28035510, 38035477 and 38035500. On the other
hand, the place of the commission of the offenses charged in the
information in criminal case No. 4153, namely, Caloocan, Rizal. In the
latter case, therefore, the appellant did not run the risk of being
tried for or convicted of having forged or counterfeited the treasury
warrants referred to in at least three of the information’s filed in the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. It is true that Treasury Warrant
No. 28035480, dated June 24, 1952 for $913.35, involved in criminal
case No. 1677 of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, is one of
the several obligations or securities involved in criminal case No.
4152; but as no evidence has as yet been presented which may determine
whether or not there is in fact double jeopardy, the motion to quash as
regards said case (No. 1677) is premature.

Wherefore, the appealed order is affirmed and it is so ordered with costs against the appellant.

Pablo, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Bengzon, J., in the result.

---

DISSENTING

PADILLA, J.:

The appeal taken in this case is against an interlocutory order
denying a motion to quash an information. The point raised by the
defendant in the appeal should not be decided. The case should be
remanded to the court below for further proceedings.