G.R. No. 206442 , July 1, 2015
JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jovito Canceran, together with two others, was charged with Frustrated Theft in an Information dated October 6, 2002. The Information alleged that at Ororama Mega Center, the accused, with intent to gain and without consent, did take, steal, and carry away 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at ₱28,627.20, performing all acts of execution to produce theft, but did not produce it by reason of discovery and prevention by employees, a cause independent of their will. The prosecution’s evidence, through security guard Damalito Ompoc and officer William Michael N. Arcenio, established that Canceran pushed a cart containing two boxes labeled as Magic Flakes to the cashier and paid ₱1,423.00. Upon inspection, the boxes were found to contain the Ponds cream. Canceran hurriedly left, was chased and caught, and later offered to settle. Canceran denied the charge, claiming an unknown person asked him to pay for the boxes, and he was unaware of their contents. He also claimed a prior Information for theft from October 2002 was dismissed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Canceran of consummated Theft, citing Valenzuela v. People that there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. Canceran appealed, raising issues of double jeopardy and the lack of the element of taking.

ISSUE

1. Whether Canceran should be acquitted because the crime of theft was not charged in the Information.
2. Whether there was double jeopardy.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the Information charged Canceran only with “Frustrated Theft,” which legally does not exist. The allegations in the Information stated that the acts did not produce the crime of theft due to an independent cause, which describes an attempted, not consummated, stage. Therefore, Canceran could only be convicted of Attempted Theft, a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge of Frustrated Theft. Convicting him of consummated Theft would violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation. On the second issue, the Court found no double jeopardy. The dismissal of the first Information was merely a release order after Canceran posted bail, not an acquittal, and he had not yet entered a plea, so jeopardy had not attached. The Court modified the CA decision, convicting Canceran of Attempted Theft and imposing an indeterminate penalty of four months of Arresto Mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of Prision Correccional, as maximum.