G.R. No. L-39229 December 29, 1977
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORENZO GLORIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Lorenzo Gloria was initially convicted by the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija, Guimba Branch, in three consolidated cases for theft of large cattle. The Informations alleged thefts from different owners in Guimba in March 1971. However, the evidence presented at trial proved a different offense: the theft of two carabaos belonging to Donato Corpuz in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, on April 18, 1971. The trial judge, noting this variance, convicted Gloria specifically for that proven offense. The dispositive portion of that decision expressly stated it operated as a bar to another theft case then pending preliminary investigation involving the same act. Gloria appealed this conviction but later withdrew his appeal, making the Guimba court’s judgment final.
Subsequently, another Information was filed against Gloria before the CFI of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan Branch, docketed as Criminal Case No. SD-3 (72). This new case charged him with the theft of two carabaos (one male, one female) belonging to Donato Corpuz, committed on April 18, 1971, in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. Gloria pleaded double jeopardy, invoking his prior conviction from the Guimba court. The Cabanatuan court rejected his plea, reasoning that the subject matter of the two cases was distinct and that the first conviction was not yet final due to the pending appeal. It proceeded to convict and sentence him.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction by the Cabanatuan court in Criminal Case No. SD-3 (72) places appellant Lorenzo Gloria in double jeopardy for the same offense.

RULING

Yes, the subsequent conviction constitutes double jeopardy. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy prohibits punishing a person twice for the same offense. The legal requisites for a valid plea are present: a prior conviction under a valid complaint before a competent court, after arraignment and plea, which was terminated without the express consent of the accused. The first conviction by the Guimba court, having become final after the withdrawal of the appeal, satisfies these conditions.
The core of the issue is the identity of offenses. While the allegations in the initial Informations differed, the actual offense for which Gloria was convicted in the first case was definitively established by the evidence: the theft of two carabaos from Donato Corpuz on April 18, 1971, in Sto. Domingo. The Cabanatuan case charged the identical offense, describing the same carabaos (one male, one female), the same owner, date, and location. Crucially, the record contains no indication that the two prosecutions involved different carabaos or separate criminal acts. The evidence that supported the first conviction is the same evidence required for the second. Therefore, there is identity of offenses in law and fact. All conditions for double jeopardy being met, the second conviction is invalid. The decision of the Cabanatuan court is set aside.