THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HANSON C. CHANG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Manila finding Hanson C. Chang guilty of the crime of estafa and
sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 4 months of arresto
mayor to 1 year and 8 months of prison correccional, with
the accessory penalties provided for by law, to indemnify the offended
party in the sum of P480.83, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

This appeal was originally taken to the Court of Appeals, but
was later certified to this Court on the ground that it involves merely a
question of law.

Appellant was an agent of the American Factors (Phil.) Inc. in
the years 1946 and 1947, and as such, he collected from different
customers the value of certain merchandise amounting to P5,736.83. As
appellant failed to turn over this amount to the company, he was
prosecuted for estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila under
Criminal Case No. 3777. During the pendency of the case, an amicable
settlement was reached between appellant and the offended party whereby
appellant was allowed to pay the amount of P5,736.83 in installments at
the rate of P200 a month. In view of this amicable settlement, the case
was provisionally dismissed.

Of the amount of P5,736.83, appellant was only able to pay the
amount of P3,456. After the provisional dismissal of the case, the Alto
Surety and Insurance Company paid the amount of P1,800 leaving a
balance of P480.83. When appellant failed to pay this balance, he was
prosecuted for estafa under Criminal Case No. 7344, origin of the
present appeal.

Appellant waived his right to present any evidence and
preferred to submit the case on the facts as submitted by the
prosecution.

The only question posed by appellant in this appeal is
contained in the following statement that appears in his brief: “We
agree with the trial court that payments effected by the accused affects
only his civil but not the criminal aspect of the case. This is true
with reference to Criminal Case No. 3777. In other words, even if the
defendant-appellant has already made arrangements for the payment of the
amount embezzled in Criminal Case No. 3777. But, the People instead of
prosecuting to the full extent Criminal Case No. 3777 petitioned the
Court for its dismissal. In so far, therefore, as Criminal Case No.
3777 is concerned, the criminal liability of the defendant had been
extinguished not because of his payment but because the People sought
the dismissal of the case against him.” In other words, appellant seems
to contend that the dismissal of the first information is tantamount to
his acquittal, and that his prosecution under the second information
places him twice in jeopardy.

This contention is untenable if considered in the light of the
facts of the present case. It appears that the first information was
provisionally dismissed because appellant had asked the offended party
to drop the case against him on condition that he would pay the whole
amount he misappropriated and provided further that his obligation be
guaranteed by a bonding company. The amicable settlement was predicated
upon the understanding that, once arrived at, the case would be
dropped. It is apparent therefore that the first information was
dismissed not only with his express consent but upon his own initiative.
And as such dismissal was ordered with his express consent, it follows
that the same does not operate as a bar to another prosecution (Section
9, Rule 113.)

Finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is
hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor,
Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.