United States vs. Lim Buanco

Each separate fraudulent obtaining of money by means of a distinct check constitutes a distinct crime of estafa, and conviction for one does not bar prosecution for another even when both were committed in pursuance of the same conspiracy.

Luciano de los Reyes was employed for at least three and a half years prior to October 6, 1906 in the Banco Español-Filipino as bookkeeper and check registry clerk, charged with custody of certain current account books and with examining checks and certifying whether the drawer had sufficient funds. Lim Buanco maintained a current account in the same bank and drew large sums therefrom by checks subject to Reyes's inspection and indorsement. The indorsement "Corriente, P. O. Luciano de los Reyes" was relied upon by the bank cashier as authority for payment.

For at least three and a half years before October 6, 1906, Luciano de los Reyes served the Banco Español-Filipino as bookkeeper and check registry clerk. He kept certain current account books, inspected checks presented for payment including those drawn by Lim Buanco, examined the drawer's balance, and, if payment was proper, indorsed the check "Corriente, P. O. Luciano de los Reyes." Upon that indorsement the cashier paid or ordered payment of the check in reliance thereon. During the same period Lim Buanco maintained an account with the bank and drew large sums by checks so inspected and indorsed by Reyes.

In furtherance of a conspiracy between them for the withdrawal of funds by Lim Buanco regardless of any credit balance, Reyes fraudulently manipulated the entries in Lim Buanco's accounts to show an apparent credit when Lim Buanco was in fact heavily indebted to the bank. On October 6, 1906, Lim Buanco drew a check on the Banco Español-Filipino for 1,000 pesos, deposited it in another bank, and through that agency it was presented in due course and paid by the Banco Español-Filipino. Before payment Reyes, acting as bank employee, indorsed it "Corriente, P. O. Luciano de los Reyes," although Lim Buanco then had no actual credit balance and no authority from any bank officer to overdraw. Both defendants knew at the time that Lim Buanco had no balance but was indebted to the bank in more than 300,000 pesos previously withdrawn by similar fraudulently indorsed checks.

The trial court found the damage from this check, with 6 per cent interest per annum from October 6, 1906 to January 16, 1909, to be the sum stated as equivalent to 5,682.50 pesetas, no part of which had been returned to the bank by either defendant or anyone on their behalf. The trial court further found that each defendant had voluntarily admitted the crime charged. Although separate trials were granted, the findings of fact and conclusions were embodied in one decision and one joint sentence was pronounced, the sentence to become operative upon expiration of the sentence imposed the same day in the companion case involving a 2,000-peso check.

• Sufficiency of the Information, Nature of the Crime, Separate Trials, and Comment on Silence: Defendants contended that the information was insufficient, that the offense charged was misconceived, that the right to separate trials was impaired, and that reference by the trial court to their failure to testify in their own behalf was improper.
• Former Jeopardy: Defendants maintained that prosecution on the 1,000-peso check was barred because the acts charged were done in furtherance of the same conspiracy alleged in case No. 5240, tried the previous day on a 2,000-peso check, such that the fraudulent withdrawal of more than 300,000 pesos constituted a single continuing offense already adjudicated.

• Former Jeopardy: Whether prosecution and conviction for estafa based on the 1,000-peso check dated October 6, 1906 are barred by former jeopardy by reason of the prior conviction for estafa based on the 2,000-peso check, where both were obtained in furtherance of the same conspiracy to defraud the Banco Español-Filipino.

• Former Jeopardy: No. Each fraudulent obtaining of a specific sum by means of a specifically identified check constituted a distinct crime of estafa, provable by different evidence, so conviction for one could not be pleaded in bar to prosecution for another.

• Former Jeopardy: The informations did not charge the technical crime of conspiracy, but charged the obtaining of a specific sum by means of a specifically mentioned and identified check, through the fraudulent cooperation of Lim Buanco and Reyes amounting to the deceit constitutive of estafa. The check described and introduced in each case was for a different amount from that in the other cases — 1,000 pesos here, 2,000 pesos in No. 5240, and 3,500 pesos in the companion case — such that the check in one case could not properly have been offered to prove the allegation in either other case. The preparation, approval, and payment of numerous checks under the same fraudulent method therefore could not be treated as one continuing offense. Even if conspiracy had been charged and proved, several distinct felonies accomplished by means of a single conspiracy remain separate and distinct, depending on different acts provable by different evidence and accomplished by distinct though similar means.

• Distinct offenses in estafa committed by separate checks — Each separate fraudulent obtaining of money by the preparation, certification, and payment of a distinct check constitutes a distinct and complete crime, although effected by the same method and pursuant to a continuing fraudulent arrangement. Applied here, the 1,000-peso, 2,000-peso, and 3,500-peso checks each supported a separate prosecution for estafa.
• Former jeopardy; same offense test in conspiracy-related crimes — Acts done in pursuance of a conspiracy, each distinct from the other, do not become the "same offense" merely because done pursuant to that conspiracy. Applied here, the single conspiracy to withdraw funds regardless of balance did not merge the separate check transactions into one continuing offense, and evidence essentially necessary to sustain one indictment would not sustain the others.

• "Each separate fraudulent obtaining of money from the bank by means of such methods constituted a distinct crime, and a conviction of one such crimes can not be pleaded in bar to a prosecution for another." — States the ratio decidendi rejecting former jeopardy and defining each check transaction as a separate estafa.
• "Where several acts are done in pursuance of a conspiracy, each act being distinct from the other, the fact that they are in fact done in pursuance of a conspiracy does not make one act the "same offense" as the other." — Quotes the monographic note in People vs. McDaniels relied upon to hold that a common conspiracy does not merge distinct substantive offenses.
• "While the conspiracy may be single, and therefore subject to one indictment only, yet the felonies accomplished by means of the conspiracy were separate and distinct, depending upon the different acts, provable by different evidence, and accomplished by distinct though similar means." — Quotes Wallace vs. State to explain why different evidence was required for each check and why acquittal or conviction on one would not bar the others.

• United States vs. Lino Eguia Lim Buanco (alias Lim Buanco) and Luciano de los Reyes, No. 5240 — Followed as controlling companion case; the rulings therein on sufficiency of the information, nature of estafa, separate trials, and comment on failure to testify were adhered to without repetition.
• People vs. McDaniels, 92 American State Reports, 81 — Cited through its monographic note for the principle that distinct acts done pursuant to a conspiracy do not constitute the same offense for former jeopardy purposes.
• Wallace vs. State, 41 Fla., 547, 26 South., 713 — Cited as sustaining authority that felonies accomplished by means of a single conspiracy remain separate when dependent on different acts and different evidence.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.