G.R. No. 110617 December 29, 1994
GERUNCIO H. ILAGAN, CLARO PIÑON and ROSENDO PIÑON, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. ROMERO, SALVADOR Q. QUIMPO and HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Geruncio Ilagan, Claro Piñon, and Rosendo Piñon, officers of Apple Realty and Development Corporation, were charged with eight counts of estafa. The informations alleged they conspired to defraud Hometrust Development Corporation, their principal, by collecting payments from various lot buyers despite being contractually prohibited from doing so, and subsequently misappropriating the funds. Criminal Case No. C-40482 involved a consolidated allegation of defrauding multiple buyers of a total sum. Criminal Cases Nos. C-40483 to C-40489 each pertained to a specific buyer, date, and amount.
Petitioners moved to quash the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. C-40483 to C-40489 on the ground of duplicity of offenses, arguing each information charged more than one offense. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that each information pertained to a distinct transaction with a different complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, contending the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to quash the informations for alleged duplicity of offenses?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic hinges on the proper construction of the informations. A charge is duplicitous if a single information alleges two or more distinct offenses. The Court meticulously examined the allegations.
The offense charged in Criminal Case No. C-40482 was distinct, involving a consolidated allegation of defrauding the principal by failing to remit collections from several buyers. Conversely, each of the informations in Criminal Cases Nos. C-40483 to C-40489 alleged a single, specific act of estafa committed against Hometrust Development Corporation through a particular buyer. Each information identified one buyer, specific dates, and a particular sum. The act of collecting from an unauthorized person (the buyer) and misappropriating the funds constituted one unitary scheme to defraud the principal. Therefore, each information charged only one offense, albeit with complex details involving a third-party victim (the buyer) who was the immediate source of the funds. The allegations did not charge separate crimes of estafa against the buyer and against the principal within one information. The denial of the motion to quash was correct, and the use of certiorari to delay the proceedings on a straightforward interlocutory matter was unjustified.