Vincoy v.

CA
Doctrines: It is settled that the dismissal of a case during its preliminary
investigation does not constitute double jeopardy since a preliminary
investigation is not part of the trial and is not the occasion for the full and
exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only such as may engender a
well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and accused is
probably guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be considered equivalent to a
judicial pronouncement of acquittal.
Facts:
This is a petion for review of the decision of the CA on affirming the RTC,
Pasig decisions finding, petitioner, George Vincoy guilty of ESTAFA.
o Vincoy was found guilty by the RTC for misappropriating 600,000
pesos that was paid to him for mobilization funds (for 30 dump
trucks and 2 payloaders).
Rolando Flores and Lizah Cimafranca engaged in the business of George
Vincoy (owner of Delco Industries) to load silica from Bulacan.
A payment of 600,000 was given through BDO managers check and was
issue OR 085.
Despite payment, only 1 dump truck was delivered. Therefore, Flores and
Cimafranco demanded payment to be given back where Vincoy refused
and denied the former to enter his office.
Vincoy later offered a check, amounting to 715,000, wherein they agreed to
encash and get the 600,000 and give back the remainding 115,000 to
Vincoy. HOWEVER CHECK WAS DOSHOUNOURED.
Private complainants again demanded the return of their money but
petitioner could no longer be contacted. As a result, Carolina Flores was
terminated from her job as Manager of Banco de Oro, Pasig City Branch,
for guaranteeing her husbands loan.
Cimafranca file in Estafa case against Vincoy in RTC Pasay DISMISSED
RTC said Vicoys obligation was purely civil in nature.
Later, Cimafranca joined Flores and filed another Estafa case in Pasig.
(ROOT OF PRESENT PETITION)
Vincoy denied that he received 600,000, alleged that he only received
400,000 not noticing this he issued OR 085. Upon discovery, he instructed
his drivers to return check. (Kaya daw isang truck lang dumating)
RTC did not believe defense, convicted him of Estafa RT of 14yrs 8m
1d 20yrs.
o Appealed to Court of Appeals to no avail.
Issue:
WON Vincoy is guilty of ESTAFA (YES petition was DENIED, CA decision
AFFIRMED)

Held:
On DOUBLE JEOPARDY:
The dismissal of a similar complaint for estafa filed by Lizah Cimafranca before
the City Prosecutors Office of Pasay City will not exculpate the petitioner. The
case cannot bar petitioners prosecution. It is settled that the dismissal of a case
during its preliminary investigation does not constitute double jeopardy since a
preliminary investigation is not part of the trial and is not the occasion for the
full and exhaustive display of the parties evidence but only such as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and
accused is probably guilty thereof. For this reason, it cannot be considered
equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, petitioner was properly
charged before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City which is not bound by
the determination made by the Pasay City Prosecutor who may have had before him
a different or incomplete set of evidence than that subsequently presented before the
Pasig City Prosecutor.
On main contention:
Lastly, whether or not petitioner indeed received payment from private complainants
is a question of fact best left to the determination of the trial court.
That payment was indeed received by accused can not (sic) be denied as
he himself issued a receipt to evidence such receipt of payment.
The receipt, a xerox copy of which, was marked as evidence by accused
(Exhibit 4) indicated that the payment, as explained by the witness Ms.
Carolina Flores, was actually received in cash as the amount written in the
receipt is P600,000.00 and not P400,000.00. That the number of the
Managers (sic) check which was for P400,000.00 was written on the receipt
by way of reference only. This Court gives full credence to the testimony of
Ms. Flores who was eventually terminated from the bank where she worked
by reason of her guaranteeing Mr. Flores loan from a customer of the bank.
The CA knowing that Vincoy was a notable businessman, he will be prudent
enough to know whether that check was UNDER HIS NAME or not so it
was silly for him to use as defense that he did not notice that the check was
not under his name.
This factual finding of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that
petitioner indeed received payment from the private complainants in the form of the
mobilization fund, deserves great weight and respect.
Moreover, the fact that PCIBank Check No. 022170A for P715,000.00 was not
presented and marked as an exhibit during the trial, hence, could not have been
formally offered as evidence, is not fatal to the prosecutions cause. As well pointed
out by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), petitioner was prosecuted not for
issuing a worthless check, but for deceiving complainants into parting with their
P600,000.00 on the promise that he would provide them dump trucks and

payloaders.