Canceran-v-Pp - Case-Digest

JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 206442 July 1, 2015
FACTS:
Canceran, together with Frederick Vequizo and Marcial Diaz, Jr., was charged with "Frustrated Theft." The Information reads:
That on or about October 6, 2002, at more or less 12:00 noon, at Ororama Mega Center Grocery Department, Lapasan, Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Jovito Canceran, conspiring,
confederating together and mutually helping one another with his co-accused Frederick Vequizo, URC Merchandiser, and Marcial
Diaz, Jr., a Unilever Philippines merchandiser both of Ororama Mega Center, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and
consent of the owner thereof, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away 14 cartons of Ponds
White Beauty Cream valued at ₱28,627,20, belonging to Ororama Mega Center, represented by William Michael N. Arcenio, thus,
performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of theft as a consequence but, nevertheless, did not produce it
by reason of some cause independent of accused’s will, that is, they were discovered by the employees of Ororama Mega Center
who prevented them from further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream, to the damage and prejudice of the
Ororama Mega Center.
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution presented a security guard, the Customer Relation Officer of Ororama Mega
Center (Ororama), as its witnesses. Through their testimonies, the prosecution established that Canceran was seen approaching
one of the counters in Ororama, pushing a cart which contained two boxes of Magic Flakes. The security guard asked the packer
that the boxes be checked, and upon inspection, it was found that the contents of the two boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but
14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream. Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued.Upon reaching the gate, Canceran
stumbled as he attempted to ride a jeepney. He tried to settle with the guards and even offered his personal effects to pay for the
items he tried to take, but the owner refused to settle.
RTC:
RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated Theft in line with the ruling of the Court in Valenzuela v.
People that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), there is no crime of "Frustrated Theft."
CA:
CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC, reducing the penalty.
CA debunked Canceran’s contention that there was no taking because he merely pushed the cart loaded with goods to the cashier’s
booth for payment and stopped there. The appellate court held that unlawful taking was deemed complete from the moment the
offender gained possession of the thing, even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
ISSUE/S:
1) Did Canceran commit consummated theft? (YES)
Canceran contends that there was no taking of the Ponds cream considering that "the information admits the act of the petitioner did
not produce the crime of theft." Thus, absent the element of taking, the felony of theft was never proved.
The prosecution proved that all the elements of theft were present in this case.
Under Article 308 of the RPC, the essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property;
(2) the property belongs to another;
(3) the taking away was done with intent of gain;
(4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things.
"Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated
stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all."
2) Should Canceran be convicted of Consummated Theft? (NO)
A careful reading of the allegations in the Information would show that Canceran was charged with "Frustrated Theft" only
(“performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of theft as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it
by reason of some cause independent of accused’s will”)
However, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft, and the Information can never be read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft
because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced. Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that
Canceran was being charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime
of Attempted Theft.
We note that "an 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. " 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.
In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor of the offense, which was "Frustrated Theft". Nevertheless, the fact
remains that the charge was qualified by the additional allegation, "but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause
independent of accused’s will, that is, they were discovered by the employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from
further carrying away said 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream, x x x.” This averment, rendered the charge nebulous. There
being an uncertainty, the Court resolves the doubt in favor of the accused, Canceran, and holds that he was not properly informed
that the charge against him was consummated theft.
FALLO:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The August 10, 2012 Decision and the March 7, 2013 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00559 are hereby MODIFIED, in that, the Court finds accused Jovito Canceran guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Attempted Theft.

Canceran-v-Pp - Case-Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canceran-v-Pp - Case-Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canceran-v-Pp - Case-Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner,

2) Should Canceran be convicted of Consummated Theft? (NO)

You might also like