Canceran v.

People July 1, 2015

FACTS:

On or about October 6, 2002, Canceran approach one of the counters in Ororama Mega
Center, he was pushing a cart which contained two boxes of Magic Flakes for which he
paid ₱1,423.00. Upon inspection by Ompoc a security guard of the mega center, and the
packer, they found out that the contents of the two boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits,
but 14 smaller boxes of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth ₱28,627.20. After being
discovered, Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued, he stumbled as he attempted to
ride a jeepney, and was apprehended by mall employees.

CRIME:
In the information filed by the prosecution, the accused was charged with
FRUSTRATED THEFT- 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 the accused from further carrying away said 14
cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream. As there is no crime of Frustrated theft, the
accused was convicted of CONSUMATED THEFT and was sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from ten (10) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years, eight (8) months of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

DEFENSE: 

Canceran contended that there was no taking because he merely pushed the cart
loaded with goods to the cashier’s booth for payment and stopped there.

In his defense, the accused claimed that he was a promo merchandiser of La

Tondeña, Inc. and that on October 6, 2002, he was in Ororama to buy medicine for his
wife. On his way out, after buying medicine and mineral water, a male person of around
20 years of age requested him to pay for the items in his cart at the cashier, unknown to
him, the man gave him ₱1,440.00 for payment of two boxes labelled Magic Flakes, he also
denied knowing the contents of the said two boxes.

ISSUE:
Whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was not charged in the
information. 

COURT HELD:

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.
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."

"It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen
delves into the concept of ‘taking’ itself, in that there could be no true taking until the
actor obtains such degree of control over the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the
effect would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage, for it
would mean that not all the acts of execution have not been completed, the "taking not
having been accomplished."

As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. 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.

DECISION:
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.

NOTE:

"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." 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.

B. Frustrated Felonies - A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
People v. Mission (194 SCRA 432)

FACTS:

At noontime on October 24, 1978, Luis Mision sought to buy drinks on credit from
Luciana Dagohoy at Esperanza, Masbate. Luciana Dagohoy had a small store adjacent to
her house. She refused the accused. At about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of said day, as
Lelith (Mercy) Dagohoy, a niece of Luciana, was about to close the door of the store for the
night, the accused pushed it open. Once inside, he immediately stabbed Lelith on her left
shoulder. The latter fell down. Thereafter, the accused approached Luciana, who was
sitting some three (3) meters away, and likewise stabbed her, hitting her on the right
breast. When Lelith saw her aunt being stabbed, she became unconscious. Meanwhile the
accused fled. He used a knife eight (8) inches long.

When Lelith regained consciousness, she heard her aunt shouting for help. Some
neighbors responded. Soon Policeman Becamon of the Esperanza Integrated National
Police came. He brought the two wounded victims to the Cataingan Emergency Hospital at
Cataingan, Masbate, arriving there at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning of October 25,
1978. That same morning, the Police Officer interviewed the two wounded victims, both
positively identified the accused, Luis Mision as the assailant.

On October 26, 1978, Luciana Dagohoy died of septicemia or blood poisoning which set in
twenty-four hours after the infliction of the injury, and hemorrhage due to the stab
wounds while Lelith was discharged from the hospital after five (5) days.

CRIME:
Convicted of the complex crime of murder with frustrated murder and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua.

DEFENSE: 
- The accused interposed the defense of alibi before the trial court. He testified he
never went to the store of the victims either in the afternoon or evening of 24
 October 1978. He admitted he had known the victims for more than three (3)
years; he had regularly served as a porter of goods sold at the Dagohoys' store.
- The defense attempted to suggest that the injury upon the person of merceda
was merely “superficial” and that it was improper for the trial court to convict
appellant of the crime of frustrated murder.

ISSUE:
1. Wether or not the injury upon the person of Merceda (Lelith) can be considered
frustrated murder.
2. Whether or not Luis Mision is guilty of the complex crime of murder with frustrated
murder or two (2) separate crimes of murder.

COURT HELD:
1. The evidence also established that appellant had inflicted the stab wound on the
shoulder of Merceda Dagohoy.  Initially, Dr. Almanzor estimated that Merceda
1âwphi1

would require medical treatment for a period from seven (7) to fourteen (14)
days. Merceda was in fact discharged from the hospital after five (5) days
confinement. Even so, we agree with the trial court that the assault upon
Merceda constituted frustrated murder, her relatively quick recovery being the
result of prompt medical attention which prevented the infection in the wound
from reaching fatal proportions which would otherwise have ensued.

2. The trial court characterized the acts of the appellant as a delito compuesto, the
complex crime defined under the first clause of Article 48. In the present case,
however, the evidence established that appellant inflicted a stab wound on each
of the two (2) victims who were separated from each other by a distance of three
(3) meters. There were, in other words, two (2) distinct acts, directed at two (2)
different victims successively, separated from each other by a brief but
discernible interval of time and space. A delito compuesto, in contrast, arises
from a single physical act resulting in simultaneous (or almost simultaneous)
injury to two (2) or more victims. The two (2) distinct offenses here having arisen
from two (2) distinct physical acts, such offenses cannot be characterized as
constituting a delito compuesto.

In the case at bar, the assault was mounted by the accused against his victims
in such a manner that caught them by surprise. It was so swift that they were
unable to even defend themselves, armed as they were, or to flee from the
culprit. The attack was clearly a treacherous one. This circumstance qualified
the crime to Murder.

We turn to the penalties imposable on appellant for the separate offenses he

committed. The penalty prescribed by law for the consummated offense of
murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. There being no modifying
circumstances present in this case, the appropriate penalty imposable on
appellant for the death of Luciana Dagohoy would be the medium
period, i.e., reclusion perpetua.
 The penalty provided by law for the crime of frustrated murder is prision
mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium, the penalty next lower in degree
to that prescribed by law for the consummated offense. There being no modifying
circumstance present, the appropriate penalty imposable on appellant would be
the medium period, i.e., reclusion temporal minimum. The proper penalty after
giving effect to the Indeterminate Sentence Law may then be located within the
range from prision correccional maximum to reclusion temporal minimum.

DECISION:

The Decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED by holding the accused Luis
Mision guilty of TWO (2) SEPARATE CRIMES OF MURDER AND FRUSTRATED
MURDER. There being neither a mitigating nor a generic aggravating circumstance alleged
and proven, the accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the death of
Luciana Dagohoy. He shall likewise suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day as
minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum for the frustrated
murder of Merceda Dagohoy. The penalties shall be served successively in accordance with
the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code

NOTE:

A COMPOUND CRIME is one where a single act produces two or more crimes.
A COMPLEX CRIME strictly speaking is one where the offender has to commit an
offense as a means for the commission of another offense. It is said that the offense is
committed as a necessary means to commit the other offense. “Necessary” should not
be understood as indispensable, otherwise, it shall be considered absorbed and not
giving rise to a complex crime.