Canceran vs.
People
Case
G.R. No. 206442
In the case of Canceran v. People, the Court ruled that the accused should not be
convicted of consummated theft as he was only charged with "Frustrated Theft" in
the information, and that there was no double jeopardy as the first case was
dismissed before the accused could enter a plea.
Facts:
Jovito Canceran, Frederick Vequizo, and Marcial Diaz, Jr. were charged with
"Frustrated Theft" related to an October 6, 2002 incident at Ororama Mega Center
Grocery Department in Cagayan de Oro City.
They attempted to steal 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at PHP
28,627.20 but were caught by Ororama employees.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 39, convicted Canceran
of consummated theft, sentencing him to ten years and one day to fourteen years
and eight months in prison.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the penalty to
two years, four months, and one day to eight years, eight months, and one day.
Canceran appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he should be acquitted of theft
as it was not charged in the information and claimed double jeopardy because the
first case was dismissed before he could enter a plea.
Issue:
Should Canceran be acquitted of the crime of theft as it was not charged in the
information?
Was there double jeopardy in this case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Attempted Theft, modifying the CA's decision.
The Court ruled that there was no double jeopardy as the first jeopardy never
attached.
Ratio:
Acquittal of Theft Charge:
The Constitution guarantees the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.
The Information charged Canceran with "Frustrated Theft," a non-existent crime
under Philippine law.
The Information could not be interpreted as charging consummated theft since it
explicitly stated that the crime was not completed.
Canceran could only be convicted of Attempted Theft, as the Information did not
properly inform him of a charge of consummated theft.
An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that charged in the
complaint or information, regardless of the evidence presented.
Double Jeopardy:
For double jeopardy to attach, there must be a valid indictment, a competent
court, arraignment, a valid plea, and the case must be dismissed or terminated
without the express consent of the accused.
Canceran never entered a valid plea in the first case, and the dismissal was not
unconditional but merely a release order because he posted bail.
Therefore, the first jeopardy never attached, and there was no double jeopardy.
Penalty for Attempted Theft:
The Court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
The penalty for Attempted Theft should be within the range of Arresto Mayor
Minimum to Arresto Mayor Medium for the minimum penalty, and Arresto Mayor
Maximum to Prision Correccional Minimum in its maximum period for the
maximum penalty.
Considering the value of the stolen items and the special aggravating
circumstance, the Court sentenced Canceran to an indeterminate prison term
ranging from four months of Arresto Mayor to two years and four months of
Prision Correccional
