Facts:
E was charged first with falsification of commercial document before the MTC for allegedly falsifying the signatures of two company officials where she worked, and pocketing the P2M indicated in the check. Later she was charged with theft thru falsification of commercial document before the RTC arising from the same set of facts.
In the MTC case, E was acquitted because her demurrer to evidence was granted. The RTC however convicted her of simple theft. Thus, E elevated her case to the Supreme Court, arguing that double jeopardy had set in with her acquittal before the MTC for falsification of commercial document.
Issue:
Whether or not E should be acquitted on the ground that double jeopardy had set in after she was acquitted in the MTC case for falsification of commercial document, and therefore, she cannot be convicted of theft anymore when the manner of commission was thru falsification of commercial document.
Ruling:
Petition granted:
“In cases of complex crimes, however, double jeopardy attached when the first offense is a necessary means of committing the second offense. In such cases, the complex crime proper necessarily includes the first offense as an element. A valid termination of the first jeopardy effectively bars its use as the necessary means to prove the complex crime. To secure a conviction for the complex crime proper, the prosecution must establish both component felonies beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court finds a concurrence of all the requisites and sub-requisites in the case at bench.
For one, a valid first jeopardy attached. Evale was initially charged before the MTCC with falsification of commercial document, and subsequently inculpated with theft thru falsification of commercial document. Both the the complaint and the information were sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction. And b oath courts a quo acquitted jurisdictions over the offenses charged. Evale was arraigned in these cases and she pled not guilty to the charges. She was eventually acquitted in the falsification case.
For another, the first jeopardy was validly terminated. Although Evalle was convicted by the RTC in the theft thru falsification case, her conviction did not attain finality yet as she sought recourse with the CA via n appeal. Thus, the first jeopardy is the falsification case which was validly terminated when the MTCC granted her demurrer. The grant of demurrer, which results in an acquittal, is final and executory.
Finally, the second case is for the same offense or one that necessarily includes the first. To reiterate, the proscription against double jeopardy exists to prevent a relitigation of the same offense. In Evale’s case, the first jeopardy involved the falsification of commercial document; the second jeopardy involved the complex crime proper of theft thru falsification of commercial document. She was thus compelled to relitigate the falsification charge in Criminal Case No. 422-02, despite her acquittal in Criminal Case No. 39-03 Her acquittal for falsification should base any further attempt to prosecute her for an offense in which falsification is alleged as the necessary means of committing another felony.
The manner in which Evale was prosecuted patently subjected here to an unjust and prejudicial ordeal. She was compelled to endure prolonged and successive criminal proceedings as the prosecution fractured as single act giving rise to the same offense into multiple cases, merely by recasting that act as an element of a complex crime or by shifting the theory of prosecution,. This Court cannot, and will not, countenance such an oppressive practice.
As earlier adumbrated, all the requisites for the attachment of the first jeopardy obtain in the case at bench. There having been a valid judgment of acquittal for falsification of commercial document in Criminal Case No 39-03, the first jeopardy was validly terminated. Evalle’s conviction for theft in Criminal Case No. 422-04 brought ion appeal before the CA, constitutes a second jeopardy for the same offense or for an offense that necessarily includes the first.:” (citations omitted
MARILYN N. EVALLE vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 216882, February 19, 2026