Case Digest (G.R. No. 206442)
Facts:
The case involves Jovito Canceran as the petitioner against the People of the Philippines as the respondent, with the decision rendered on July 1, 2015, by the Second Division of the Supreme Court. The events leading to the case occurred on October 6, 2002, at the Ororama Mega Center Grocery Department in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. Canceran, along with co-accused Frederick Vequizo and Marcial Diaz, Jr., was charged with "Frustrated Theft." The Information alleged that they conspired to unlawfully take 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20, belonging to Ororama Mega Center, without the owner's consent. The prosecution's case was supported by testimonies from security guard Damalito Ompoc and Customer Relation Officer William Michael N. Arcenio, who detailed how Canceran attempted to leave the store with the stolen items concealed in boxes labeled as Magic Flakes. Canceran was apprehended after a chase, during which he off...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 206442)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- Jovito Canceran, along with Frederick Vequizo and Marcial Diaz, Jr., was charged with "Frustrated Theft" for allegedly attempting to steal 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20 from Ororama Mega Center on October 6, 2002.
- The Information stated that the accused performed all acts of execution to commit theft but were prevented by Ororama employees.
Prosecution’s Version
- Damalito Ompoc, a security guard, testified that Canceran paid for two boxes labeled Magic Flakes but were found to contain Ponds White Beauty Cream.
- Canceran attempted to flee but was caught and offered to settle the matter by offering his personal belongings.
- William Michael N. Arcenio, Ororama’s Customer Relation Officer, refused to settle, and Canceran’s belongings were confiscated.
Defense’s Version
- Canceran denied the charges, claiming he was a promo merchandiser for La Tondeña, Inc., and was at Ororama to buy medicine for his wife.
- He alleged that an unidentified man asked him to pay for the items in his cart, and he complied out of goodwill.
- He denied knowledge of the contents of the boxes and claimed he was mauled and robbed by Ororama employees after being caught.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Canceran of consummated theft, citing the ruling in Valenzuela v. People that there is no crime of "Frustrated Theft."
- The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the penalty.
- Canceran raised the issue of double jeopardy, arguing that a prior theft case against him had been dismissed.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Right to Be Informed of the Charge:
- The Constitution guarantees the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
- The Information charged Canceran with "Frustrated Theft," which is not a crime under the RPC. Therefore, he could only be convicted of Attempted Theft, a lesser offense included in the charge.
Elements of Theft:
- The essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC are:
- Taking of personal property;
- The property belongs to another;
- The taking was done with intent to gain;
- The taking was without the owner’s consent;
- The taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation.
- The Court emphasized that "unlawful taking" is the act that produces the felony in its consummated stage. Without it, the offense can only be attempted theft.
- The essential elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC are:
Double Jeopardy:
- Double jeopardy requires that:
- A first jeopardy must have attached;
- The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
- The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
- In this case, the first jeopardy did not attach because Canceran never entered a valid plea, and the dismissal of the first case was not an acquittal but due to his posting of bail.
- Double jeopardy requires that:
Penalty for Attempted Theft:
- The penalty for consummated theft is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
- For attempted theft, the penalty is two degrees lower than that prescribed for the consummated crime.
- The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four months of arresto mayor (minimum) to two years and four months of prision correccional (maximum).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified the CA’s decision, convicting Canceran of Attempted Theft and imposing a reduced penalty. The Court emphasized the importance of the accused’s right to be informed of the charges and clarified that "Frustrated Theft" is not a recognized crime under the RPC.