Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 129 views

    Canceran Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Razel May Ramon
    The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could only be convicted of attempted theft, not consummated theft, because the information only charged him with attempted theft. For a conviction, the information must allege all elements of the offense charged to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Even if the evidence proves a higher offense, the defendant cannot be convicted of it unless that specific offense is charged. The Court also found that double jeopardy did not apply because legal jeopardy did not attach in the first case, as the defendant was not arraigned or able to enter a valid plea before the first case was dismissed when he posted bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Canceran Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Razel May Ramon
    129 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could only be convicted of attempted theft, not consummated theft, because the information only charged him with attempted theft. For a conviction, the information must allege all elements of the offense charged to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Even if the evidence proves a higher offense, the defendant cannot be convicted of it unless that specific offense is charged. The Court also found that double jeopardy did not apply because legal jeopardy did not attach in the first case, as the defendant was not arraigned or able to enter a valid plea before the first case was dismissed when he posted bail.

    Original Description:

    Due Process and Double Jeopardy

    Original Title

    Canceran vs People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could only be convicted of attempted theft, not consummated theft, because the information only charged him with attempted theft. For a conviction, the information must allege all elements of the offense charged to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Even if the evidence proves a higher offense, the defendant cannot be convicted of it unless that specific offense is charged. The Court also found that double jeopardy did not apply because legal jeopardy did not attach in the first case, as the defendant was not arraigned or able to enter a valid plea before the first case was dismissed when he posted bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    129 views2 pages

    Canceran Vs People

    Uploaded by

    Razel May Ramon
    The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant could only be convicted of attempted theft, not consummated theft, because the information only charged him with attempted theft. For a conviction, the information must allege all elements of the offense charged to enable the defendant to prepare a defense. Even if the evidence proves a higher offense, the defendant cannot be convicted of it unless that specific offense is charged. The Court also found that double jeopardy did not apply because legal jeopardy did not attach in the first case, as the defendant was not arraigned or able to enter a valid plea before the first case was dismissed when he posted bail.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JOVITO CANCERAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No.

    206442, July 1, 2015

    No less than the Constitution guarantees the right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be
    informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. It is fundamental that every element of which
    the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the
    various elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
    defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.

    [A]n accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in the complaint
    or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of
    guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the
    complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. 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." Indeed, 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. An offense charged
    necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as
    alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter.

    The crime of theft in its consummated stage undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted stage. In this
    case, although the evidence presented during the trial prove the crime of consummated Theft, he could be
    convicted of Attempted Theft only. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence to convict him for
    consummated Theft, because the Information did not charge him with consummated Theft, the Court
    cannot do so as the same would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the allegations
    against him, as he so protests.

    In the case of Domingo v. Rayala, it was written:

    What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, nor the designation of the offense charged or the
    particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being mere conclusions of law made by the
    prosecutor, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts or
    omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common
    understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper
    judgment. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the
    elements of the crime charged. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. What facts
    and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions
    and essentials of the specified crimes. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the
    information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to
    suitably prepare his defense.

    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. 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.

    To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have
    attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
    jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid
    indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having been entered; and (e)
    the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
    Even assuming that he was able to raise the issue of double jeopardy earlier, the same must still fail
    because legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid 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.

    You might also like