G.R. No. 45471 - People vs. Mercado

The People of the Philippines instituted criminal proceedings against Francisco Mercado, charging him with the theft of large cattle (carabaos).
The case arose from two informations filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga following preliminary inquiries conducted by the justice of the peace court in Candaba, Pampanga.
Francisco Mercado, the appellee, waived the right to a preliminary investigation and requested that the cases be remanded to the Court of First Instance for trial and final judgment.

Two separate informations were filed for the theft of carabaos on or about June 21, 1936.

In the first information (G.R. No. 45471), Mercado was alleged to have taken and carried away two male carabaos branded with specific certificates (Certificates Nos. 7361553 and 6993322) with a combined value of P120, owned by Pedro A. Ladores.
In the second information (G.R. No. 45472), he was similarly charged with the theft of a single male carabao (Certificate No. 6696261) valued at P90, owned by Leon Ladores.

The information stated that although the stolen carabaos were later found in Mercado’s possession in the municipality of Candaba, Pampanga, the criminal acts (theft) were commenced in Gapan, Nueva Ecija.

The Court of First Instance of Pampanga declared that it lacked jurisdiction because the crimes were alleged to have been committed in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, which falls outside its territorial jurisdiction.
The crux of the jurisdictional argument relied on the rule that a criminal offense may be tried only in the territory wherein the crime is committed.
The lower court determined that because the essential act of taking (with intent to gain) occurred in Gapan, the thefts were consumated there, regardless of the later carriage into Pampanga.

The appellant contested the jurisdictional bar by invoking the idea of continuing crimes, citing American cases and commentaries (e.g., United States vs. Cunanan, Bernabe, and opinions from Wharton and Clark) to argue that certain crimes may span multiple jurisdictions.
The court, however, found no factual or legal basis to equate the present theft cases with those continuing offenses where the criminal act extends over more than one locality.
The court emphasized the traditional requirement that for theft to be complete, the act must include both the taking and the carrying away of personal property with an intent to gain.
Further support was drawn from Spanish judicial decisions and authoritative texts, which underscored that the consummation of theft can be marked by the taking alone if accompanied by wrongful intent.

Whether the Court of First Instance of Pampanga has jurisdiction to try and decide the theft cases, given that the crime was commenced in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, even though the stolen property was later found in Candaba, Pampanga.

Whether the consummation of the crime of theft is complete upon the act of taking with intent to gain, irrespective of the subsequent carriage of the property to another locality.

The validity of extending jurisdiction based on doctrines of continuing or successive acts (as argued by the appellant using American case law) in the context of the crimes charged.