People V Madrigal Gonzales

People v.
Madrigal-Gonzales, L-16688, 30 April 1963
Facts:
On August 23, 1956, the accused Pacita Madrigal-Gonzales was charged with malversation of public
funds in the amount of P104,000.00. It was alleged that while she was an administrator of the Social
Welfare Administration (SWA), she appropriated, took, and misapproportionated the said amount on five
different occasions comprised within the period of February 1954- September 1955. On the same date she
was charged, with seven others, with the crime of Falsification of Public Documents. They were alleged
to have conspired in the commission of the crime to make it appear that cash aids were given when no
such aid was distributed. In addition, Gonzales also made it appear that he bought relief supplies. In total,
27 separate information for falsification and one information for malversation were filed against
Gonzales. The cases were petitioned by the prosecution to be consolidated for the reason that the alleged
information were connected- that the falsifications were committed to conceal the malversation. This was
initially granted by the trail court and was suddenly reversed- distributed to the 18 different branches of
the Court. The accused filed a motion to quash Criminal Cases Nos. 368778 and 36883 to 36884,
inclusive, on the ground of double jeopardy, having been filed also in each of the other 16 salas or
branches of the lower court before which the said cases were docketed, on the ground that the 27 separate
information for falsification indeed constitute only one indictable offense of falsification considering that
the falsifications allegedly committed separately as described under said separate information were but
the result or product of one single criminal impulse or intent, and the same are therefore in the nature of a
continuing offense which should be alleged and prosecuted only under one information. The petition was
granted. The prosecution interposed the instant appeal on purely questions of law. During the appeals
pendency, the CFI of Manila dismissed Criminal Case No. 36882; while Branch XIII of the same Court of
First Instance, dismissed Criminal Case No. 36885 for falsification, dismissed the said case by finding all
said accused innocent, with costs de officio. The Solicitor General is of the belief that the dismissals of
the cases by the three branches of the Manila CFI, constituted double jeopardy and, therefore, they are a
bar to the further prosecution of the remaining 24 information for falsification. City Fiscal of Manila
claims that the appeal of the State is meritorious; there is no double jeopardy; and the Orders granting the
motions to quash were erroneous.
Issue:
Whether or not the Orders of the three different branches of the Manila CFI acquitting the accused,
constitute a bar to the prosecution of the remaining 22 falsification charges, filed against the same
accused-appellees, which were lodged and still pending resolution with the other branches of said Court,
on the ground of double jeopardy?
Held:
One reason advanced by the trial court and the Solicitor General in holding that the falsifications
constituted a continuing offense, proceeding from a single criminal intent is that the motive for these
falsifications was to conceal the malversation. The appellees seem to confuse motive with criminal intent.
Motive is not an element of a felony; it is merely a prospectant circumstantial evidence. Criminal intent
renders an act a felony. Motive is a state of the mind of the accused, and it is he who can state his real
motive in committing a crime. Whatever the fiscal had manifested, as to the motive which had impelled
the accused to transgress the law, was but a speculation gathered in the process of investigation. The
existence of a motive, not having been alleged in the information for falsification, to be available to the
accused in his defense of double jeopardy must have to be proven. The Court cannot assume that the
purpose of committing the twenty-seven falsifications was to conceal the malversation. This is so because
there is no showing that for every particular amount they had malversed on a certain period, they had
purposely perpetrated the corresponding falsification, to cover up such amount, until the whole amount
proposed to be malversed, shall have been completely misappropriated. In the absence of such showing, it
is to be presumed that in the falsification of each document, the criminal intent was separate and distinct.
Moreover, under the facts and circumstances appearing in the record, the grounds upon which the
appellees anchor their defense of double jeopardy in the motion to quash, are not clear and indubitable.
One cannot build up the defense of double jeopardy on mere hypothesis. WHEREFORE, the Order of the
lower court (Branch XVIII) dismissing Criminal Cases Nos. 36894, 36899 and 36904 on the ground of
double jeopardy is set aside and another entered remanding the said case for further proceedings. The
Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appeal, presented by the Solicitor General should be, as it is hereby
denied. No special pronouncement as to costs.

People V Madrigal Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Madrigal Gonzales

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Madrigal Gonzales

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

Madrigal-Gonzales, L-16688, 30 April 1963

You might also like