JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner, v.

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of
G.R. No. 206442. July 01, 2015. SECOND DIVISION. MENDOZA, J. the property stolen delves into the concept of 'taking' itself, in that there
FACTS could be no true taking until the actor obtains such degree of control
over the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the effect would be to
Petitioner Canceran, together with Vequizo and Diaz, Jr., was charged downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage, for it
with "Frustrated Theft." would mean that not all the acts of execution have not been completed,
the "taking not having been accomplished.”
Version of the Prosecutor A careful reading of the allegations in the Information would show that
The prosecution established that on or about October 6, 2002, Ompoc Canceran was charged with "Frustrated Theft" only. Pertinent parts of
saw Caneeran approach one of the counters in Ororama; that Caneeran the Information read:
was pushing a cart which contained two boxes of Magic Flakes for which
he paid P1,423.00; that Ompoc went to the packer and asked if the boxes x x x did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal
had been checked; that upon inspection by Ompoc and the packer, they and carry away 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at
found out that the contents of the two boxes were not Magic Flakes P28,627,20, belonging to Ororama Mega Center, represented by William
biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth Michael N. Arcenio, thus performing all the acts of execution which
P28,627.20; that Caneeran hurriedly left and a chase ensued; that upon would produce the crime of theft as a consequence, but
reaching the Don Mariano gate, Caneeran stumbled as he attempted to nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause
ride a jeepney; that after being questioned, he tried to settle with the independent of accused's will x x x.
guards and even offered his personal effects to pay for the items he tried
to take; that Arcenio refused to settle; and that his personal belongings As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information
were deposited in the office of Arcenio can never be read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft because
the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced. Instead,
Version of the Defense the Information should be construed to mean that Canceran was being
Canceran vehemently denied the charges against him. He claimed that he charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran
was a promo merchandiser of La Tondena, Inc. and that on October 6, may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.Indeed,
2002, he was in Ororama to buy medicine for his wife. On his way out, an accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless
after buying medicine and mineral water, a male person of around 20 it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against
years of age requested him to pay for the items in his cart at the cashier; him. An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when
that he did not know the name of this man who gave him P1,440.00 for some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged
payment of two boxes labelled Magic Flakes; that he obliged with the in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.
request of the unnamed person because he was struck by his conscience;
that he denied knowing the contents of the said two boxes; that after The crime of theft in its consummated stage undoubtedly includes the
paying at the cashier, he went out of Ororama towards Limketkai to take crime in its attempted stage. In this case, although the evidence
a jeepney; that three persons ran after him, and he was caught; that he presented during the trial prove the crime of consummated Theft, he
was brought to the 4th floor of Ororama, where he was mauled and kicked could be convicted of Attempted Theft only. Regardless of the
by one of those who chased him. Canceran further claimed that an earlier overwhelming evidence to convict him for consummated Theft,
Information for theft was already filed on October 9, 2002 which was because the Information did not charge him with consummated Theft,
eventually dismissed. In January 2003, a second Information was filed for the Court cannot do so as the same would violate his right to be
the same offense over the same incident and became the subject of the informed of the nature and cause of the allegations against him, as he
present case. so protests.

RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated The Court is not unmindful of the rule that "the real nature of the
Theft in line with the ruling of the Court in Valenzuela v. People that criminal charge is determined, not from the caption or preamble of the
under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), there is no crime of information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have been
"Frustrated Theft." The RTC wrote that Canceran's denial deserved scant violated - these being conclusions of law - but by the actual recital of
consideration because it was not supported by sufficient and convincing facts in the complaint or information. In the subject information, the
evidence and no disinterested witness was presented to corroborate his designation of the prosecutor of the offense, which was "Frustrated
claims. The CA affirmed with modification the September 20, 2007 Theft," may be just his conclusion. Nevertheless, the fact remains that
judgment of the RTC, reducing the penalty. The CA held that there could the charge was qualified by the additional allegation, but, nevertheless,
be no double jeopardy because he never entered a valid plea and so the did not produce it by reason of some cause independent of accused's will,
first jeopardy never attached. that is, they were discovered by the employees of Ororama Mega Center
who prevented them from further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds
ISSUE White Beauty Cream, x x x26 This averment, which could also be deemed
1. Whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was by some as a mere conclusion, rendered the charge nebulous. There
not charged in the information? (NO) being an uncertainty, the Court resolves the doubt in favor of the
2. Whether there was double jeopardy? (NO) accused, Canceran, and holds that he was not properly informed that
the charge against him was consummated theft.
RULING
1. No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person 2. To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be
accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2)
cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy
information. attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court,
The essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property; (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e) the
(2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express
intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the consent of the accused.28ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
owner; and (5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or
intimidation against person or force upon things. "Unlawful taking, Here, the CA correctly observed that Canceran never raised the issue of
which is the deprivation of one's personal property, is the element double jeopardy before the RTC. Even assuming that he was able to
which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, raise the issue of double jeopardy earlier, the same must still fail
without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only because legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid
be attempted theft, if at all." plea. He himself admitted that he was just about to enter a plea, but the
 first case was dismissed even before he was able to do so. Second, there
was no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The case was not
terminated by reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply because he
posted bail. Absent these two elements, there can be no double
jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The August 10,