G.R. No. L-7529; October 31, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX KHO, alias CO CAM, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

1. In Criminal Case No. 4253 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Felix Kho, Sun Leo, Choa Eng Kuan, and Amado M. Apostol were charged with allowing or procuring the removal of cigarettes subject to a specific tax of P2,014.05 without payment, as the affixed stamps were counterfeit, violating tax laws. After trial, Felix Kho, Sun Leo, and Amado M. Apostol were acquitted. The court found that factory manager Choa Eng Kuan had exclusive control of the Felix Cigar & Cigarettes Factory, and there was no evidence showing conspiracy or knowledge by the president and board members (Kho, Leo, Apostol) in the offense.
2. Subsequently, in Criminal Case No. 4264 of the same court, the same individuals were charged with possessing and controlling counterfeit internal revenue stamps valued at P24,312.25 for the purpose of evading specific taxes, violating Section 170 of the National Internal Revenue Code. Felix Kho, Sun Leo, and Amado M. Apostol filed a motion to quash, arguing that the prior acquittal in Case No. 4253 established that only factory manager Choa Eng Kuan was responsible for factory operations, without their knowledge or participation.
3. The lower court issued an order dated October 27, 1953, dismissing the case against Felix Kho, Sun Leo, and Amado M. Apostol, effectively ruling that their acquittal in the first case barred the present prosecution. The prosecution appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the acquittal of Felix Kho, Sun Leo, and Amado M. Apostol in Criminal Case No. 4253 for allowing the removal of cigarettes with counterfeit stamps (violating Section 174 of the National Internal Revenue Code) constitutes a bar to their prosecution in Criminal Case No. 4264 for possession of counterfeit stamps for use in evading taxes (violating Section 170 of the same Code), under the principle of double jeopardy.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
1. The plea of double jeopardy requires that the former prosecution be for the same offense, or for an attempt or frustration thereof, or for an offense that necessarily includes or is included in the offense charged in the former case (Section 9, Rule 113, Rules of Court).
2. The offense in the present case (possession of counterfeit stamps under Section 170) is distinct and different from the offense in the first case (allowing removal of cigarettes without tax payment under Section 174). They involve different acts and legal provisions.
3. The acquittal in the first case was based on a lack of evidence showing conspiracy or knowledge by Kho, Leo, and Apostol regarding the removal of cigarettes with fake stamps. This does not automatically absolve them in the second case for possession of counterfeit stamps, as they must still present proof of lack of participation or knowledge in the possession charge. The Court emphasized that without evidence in the present case, it cannot be assumed they had no knowledge or involvement in the possession of the stamps.
4. The appeal by the prosecution does not place the appellees in double jeopardy, as an amended information was filed and there was no record of arraignment under it; the motion to quash was directed at this amended information.
5. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in a concurring opinion, noted that the counterfeit stamps in the two cases were different in value (P24,312.25 vs. P2,014.05), and even if overlapping, it would only warrant a reduction in the quantity charged, not dismissal.