Scribd
Upload
85 views1 page

63 People V Mallari

Consuelo Mallari was accused of estafa through falsification of public documents for borrowing money from Remegio Tapawan and Julia Saclolo by falsifying two deeds. She claimed to need the money to pay taxes and customs duties for imported fruits. The Supreme Court ruled that Mallari could not be tried again for the same crime as she would be subject to double jeopardy, since the falsification of the two documents was performed on the same date, place, and time, as part of the same transaction. The rule against double jeopardy prevents an accused from being tried for the same offense.

Uploaded by

AmberChan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views1 page

63 People V Mallari

Consuelo Mallari was accused of estafa through falsification of public documents for borrowing money from Remegio Tapawan and Julia Saclolo by falsifying two deeds. She claimed to need the money to pay taxes and customs duties for imported fruits. The Supreme Court ruled that Mallari could not be tried again for the same crime as she would be subject to double jeopardy, since the falsification of the two documents was performed on the same date, place, and time, as part of the same transaction. The rule against double jeopardy prevents an accused from being tried for the same offense.

Uploaded by

AmberChan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

63 People v Mallari, G.R. No.

L-58886, 13 December 1988


REMEGIO TAPAWAN stated, his townmate Consuelo E. Mallari saw him at his house, when she
begged him and his wife to lend her cousin Leonora Balderas some amount to pay taxes and
customs duties for imported fruits impounded in the Bureau of Customs. Consuelo returned on
December 15, and reiterated her request. Since he had only P1,500.00 at that time he convinced his
mother-in-law Julia Saclolo, to shell out additional amount of P1,500.00. Consuelo and he then
proceeded to the Office of Atty. Celestino Hallazgo in Ermita, Manila for the preparation of the
documents. This attorney called up Leonora Balderas who arrived shortly accompanied by three (3)
persons one of whom is the helper of Atty. Hallazgo, Domingo Espinelli. When the two (2) deeds
prepared by Atty. Hallazgo one for him and the other for Julia Saclolo were ready, they were signed
by him, Mallari, Espinelli, Balderas and the attorney, after which he delivered the money to the
person introduced as Leonora Balderas. 8
Petitioner Consuelo E. Mallari, with three (3) others, was accused of the crime of Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Document before the then Court of First Instance of Manila

W/N the appellant is placed under a double jeopardy committing the crimes of estafa
NO. The singularity of the offense committed by petitioner is further demonstrated by the fact that the
falsification of the two (2) public documents as a means of committing estafa were performed on the
same date, in the same place, at the same time and on the same occasion.
It has also been ruled that when two informations refer to the same transaction, the second charge
cannot prosper because the accused will thereby be placed in jeopardy for the second time for the
same offense. 11
Petitioner, having already been convicted of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public
document in CA-G.R. No. 20817-CR, it stands to reason that she can no longer be held liable for the
same crime in this case. The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril
of second punishment but against being tried for the same offense.

You might also like