PEOPLE VS.

ALVAREZ
August 27, 1973 | Avancena, J. | Quashal; Double Jeopardy
PETITIONER Appellee: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENT - Appellant: Pedro Alvarez
SUMMARY: Alvarez was convicted of estafa in the lower court for selling an automobile, representing that it was free from liens
and encumbrances, when in fact it was used as security for a mortgage. Prior to his conviction for estafa, he has also been convicted
of violating Act No. 1508, for selling the automobile without the consent of the creditor. He appealed his conviction for estafa,
setting up the defense of double jeopardy. SC held that his did not constitute double jeopardy because the two cases required
different pieces of evidence.
DOCTRINE: The test for determining whether or not there is double jeopardy is if the same evidence supports the 2 actions. There
is no double jeopardy if each crime involves an act which is not an essential element of another.

FACTS: 1. Pedro Alvarez is the owner of a 2passenger automobile. He mortgaged it to the

Philippine Automobile Exchange, Inc.
2. Notwithstanding the mortgage, he sold the
automobile to Mr. Anselmo Singian. Singian bought
the automobile in the belief that it was free from all
liens and encumbrances, and Alvarez did not tell
him that the automobile was mortgaged.
3. Subsequently, the Philippine Automobile
Exchange, Inc made use of the right granted it by
the mortgage of the automobile, and took both the
automobile and the sum paid to Alvarez. This
prompted Singian to file a case of estafa against
Alvarez.
4. Alvarez was found guilty of estafa. He appealed,
setting up the defense of double jeopardy because
he has already been convicted of the same facts
under Act. No. 1508.1 He was also convicted in that
case.
ISSUE: W/N his conviction under Article 537
constituted double jeopardy NO.
RULING: AFFIRMED the conviction of the lower
court, but modified the judgment insofar as
indemnity in the sum of P1,090 should be deleted.

1

NOTE:

Act No. 1508 - Selling the automobile without the written

consent of the creditor
Article 537 of the Penal Code - Selling the automobile to
Singian, representing it was free from liens and encumbrances
even if, in fact, it was mortgaged.

RATIO: 1. The test for determining whether or not

a prosecution for one crime constitutes an obstacle
to a subsequent action for another distinct crime
upon the same facts, is to inquire whether the facts
alleged in the second information, if proven, would
have been sufficient to support the former
information, of which the accused may have been
acquitted or convicted. The gist of the question is
whether or not the same evidence supports the 2
actions.
2. Where 2 different laws define 2 crimes, the
conviction of one of them is no obstacle to that of
the other, although both offenses arise from the
same facts, if each crime involves some important
act which is not an essential element of the other.
3. Applied to the case at bar, Act No. 1508 and
Article 537 of the Penal Code require 2 different
defenses/pieces of evidence. The acts penalized by
both laws are essentially different. One can violate
Act No 1508 without violating Article 537, or vice
versa.
J. Malcolm, J. Villamor, J. Johns - Dissenting:
The case should be dismissed and the defendant
should be acquitted for committing a violation of
Article 537 of the Penal Code, due to the same
transaction test. If the prosecution under the
second information involves the same transaction
which was referred to in the former information and
it was or properly might have been the subject of
investigation under that information, an acquittal or
conviction under the former information would be a
bar to the prosecution under the last information.