You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

206442 July 1, 2015  Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued; that
upon reaching the Don Mariano gate, Canceran
JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner, stumbled as he attempted to ride a jeepney
vs.  After being questioned, he tried to settle with the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. guards and even offered his personal effects to
pay for the items he tried to take;
Case Digest by: Krystal Migallon  But, Arcenio refused to settle and his personal
belongings were deposited in the office of
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse Arcenio.
and set aside the August 10, 2012 Decision and the
March 7, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), in Version of the Defense
CA-G.R.No. 00559, which affirmed and modified the Sept.  Canceran vehemently denied the charges
20, 2007 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch against him and claimed that he was a promo
39, Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC), in merchandiser of La Tondeña, Inc.
Criminal Case No. 2003-141, convicting petitioner Jovito  On October 6, 2002, he was in Ororama to buy
Canceran (Canceran) for consummated Theft. medicine for his wife.
 On his way out, after buying medicine and mineral
FACTS: water, an unknown male person around 20 yrs old
 On October 6, 2002, at more or less 12:00 noon, requested him to pay for the items in his cart at
at Ororama Mega Center Grocery Department, the cashier at the amount of ₱1,440.00.
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, Jovito Canceran,  After paying at the cashier, he went out of
conspiring, confederating together and mutually Ororama towards Limketkai to take a jeepney;
helping one another with his co-accused that three persons ran after him, and he was
Frederick Vequizo, URC Merchandiser, and caught; that he was brought to the 4th floor of
Marcial Diaz, Jr., a Unilever Philippines Ororama, where he was mauled and kicked by
merchandiser both of Ororama Mega Center one of those who chased him
 With intent to gain and without the knowledge and  They took his Nokia 5110 cellular phone and cash
consent of the owner, did they willfully, unlawfully amounting to ₱2,500.00; and Ompoc took his
and feloniously take, steal and carry away 14 Seiko watch and ring, while a certain Amion took
cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at his necklace.
₱28,627,20, belonging to Ororama Mega Center,  Canceran further claimed that an earlier
represented by William Michael N. Arcenio Information for theft was already filed on October
 Thus, performing all the acts of execution which 9,2002 which was eventually dismissed. In
would produce the crime of theft as a January 2003, a second Information was filed for
consequence but, nevertheless, did not produce the same offense over the same incident and
it by reason of some cause independent of became the subject of the present case.
accused’s will.
 They were discovered by the employees of ISSUES
Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from 1. whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of
further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds theft as it was not charged in the information
White Beauty Cream, to the damage and 2. whether there was double jeopardy.
prejudice of the Ororama Mega Center.
RULING
Version of the Prosecution RTC: Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
 the prosecution presented Damalito Ompoc consummated Theft.
(Ompoc), a security guard; and William Michael  penalty of imprisonment from 10 years and 1 day
N. Arcenio (Arcenio), the Customer Relation to 10 years, 8 months of prision mayor, as
Officer of Ororama Mega Center (Ororama), as minimum, to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion
its witnesses. temporal, as maximum.
 Through their testimonies, the prosecution CA: Debunked Canceran’s contention that there was no
established that on or about October 6, 2002, taking because he merely pushed the cart loaded with
Ompoc saw Canceran approach one of the goods to the cashier’s booth for payment and stopped
counters in Ororama there. The appellate court held that unlawful taking was
 Canceran was pushing a cart which contained 2 deemed complete from the moment the offender gained
boxes of Magic Flakes which he paid ₱1,423.00 possession of the thing, even if he had no opportunity to
 Ompoc went to the packer and asked if the boxes dispose of the same.
had been checked; upon inspection by Ompoc
and the packer, they found out that the contents  2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision
of the 2 boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but correccional, as minimum, to 8 years, eight 8
14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream months and one 1 day of prision mayor, as
worth ₱28,627.20 maximum.
SC: PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accused Jovito Canceran 1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted 2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated
Theft. 3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as
o Accordingly, the Court sentences the that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only
accused to suffer the indeterminate a. Upon a valid indictment
prison term ranging from 4 Months of b. Before a competent court
Arresto Mayor, as minimum, to 2 Years, c. After arraignment
4 Months of Prision Correccional, as d. A valid plea having been entered
maximum. e. The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
 The basis for reduction of without the express consent of the accused.
penalty by two degrees is the
penalty prescribed by law for the  Even assuming that he was able to raise the issue
consummated crime of double jeopardy earlier, the same must still fail
 An accused cannot be convicted of a higher because legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he
offense than that with which he was charged in never entered a valid plea. He himself admitted
the complaint or information and on which he was that he was just about to enter a plea, but the first
tried. case was dismissed even before he was able to
 There is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The do so. Second, there was no unconditional
Information can never be read to charge dismissal of the complaint. The case was not
Canceran of consummated Theft because the terminated by reason of acquittal nor conviction
indictment itself stated that the crime was never but simply because he posted bail. Absent these
produced. two elements, there can be no double jeopardy.
 He was being charged with theft in its attempted
stage only. Necessarily, he may only be
convicted of the lesser of Attempted Theft.
 He has a right to be informed as to the nature of
the offense with which he is charged before he is
put on trial, and to convict him of an offense
higher than that charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried would be an
unauthorized denial of that right."
 An accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even
if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily
included in the information filed against him’
 The crime of theft in its consummated stage
undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted
stage.
 No double jeopardy when the first jeopardy never
attached
 No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for
punishment for the same offense. The rule of
double jeopardy has a settled meaning in this
jurisdiction.
o It means that when a person is charged
with an offense and the case is
terminated either by acquittal or
conviction or in any other manner without
the consent of the accused, the latter
cannot again be charged with the same
or identical offense.
 Canceran argues that double jeopardy exists as
the first case was scheduled for arraignment and
he, already bonded, was ready to enter a plea. It
was the RTC who decided that there was
insufficient evidence to constitute the crime of
theft.

Three requisites to raise the defense of double


jeopardy, must be present