G.R. No. 206442. July 1, 2015.

*
 
JOVITO CANCERAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Constitutional Law; Right to be Informed; 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.—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.
Criminal Law; Theft; Elements of.—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.”

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

294

294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

Same; Same; There is no crime of Frustrated Theft.—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.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Judgments; 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.—“[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.
Criminal Law; Theft; The crime of theft in its consummated stage
undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted stage.—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.

295

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 295

Canceran vs. People

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; The Supreme Court

(SC) is not unmindful of the rule that “the real nature of the criminal charge
is determined, not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from
the specification of the law alleged to have been violated — these being
conclusions of law — but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or
information.”—The Court is not unmindful of the rule that “the real nature
of the criminal charge is determined, not from the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have been
violated — these being conclusions of law — but by the actual recital of
facts in the complaint or information.” In the case of Domingo v. Rayala,
546 SCRA 90 (2008), 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.
Same; Same; Double Jeopardy; 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.—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. This
principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and conscience.

296

296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

Same; Same; Same; Requisites of Double Jeopardy.—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. Here, the CA
correctly observed that Canceran never raised the issue of double jeopardy
before the RTC. 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.
Criminal Law; Theft; Attempted Theft; Penalties; The penalty for
consummated theft is prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
The penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon principals in an attempt to
commit a felony.—The penalty for consummated theft is prisión mayor in
its minimum and medium periods. The penalty lower by two degrees than
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
principals in an attempt to commit a felony. The basis for reduction of
penalty by two degrees is the penalty prescribed by law for the
consummated crime. Also, when the offenses defined in the RPC are
punished with a penalty composed of two periods, like in the crime of theft,
the penalty lower by one degree is formed by two periods to be taken from
the same penalty prescribed.
 PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  R.A. Vitorillo & Associates for petitioner.

297

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 297

Canceran vs. People

  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:
 
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and
set aside the August 10, 2012 Decision1 and the March 7, 2013
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-G.R. CR No.
00559, which affirmed and modified the September 20, 2007
Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Misamis
Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2003-
141, convicting petitioner Jovito Canceran (Canceran) for
consummated Theft.
The records disclose that 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 Pond’s
White Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20, 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

_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 20-34; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate
Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, concurring.
2  Id., at pp. 36-37.
3  Id., at pp. 8-18.

298

298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

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 Pond’s White Beauty Cream, to the
damage and prejudice of the Ororama Mega Center.
Article 308 in relation to Article 309, and 6 of the Revised Penal Code.4

Version of the Prosecution

 
To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution presented
Damalito Ompoc (Ompoc), a security guard; and William Michael
N. Arcenio (Arcenio), the Customer Relation Officer of Ororama
Mega Center (Ororama), as its witnesses. Through their testimonies,
the prosecution established that on or about October 6, 2002, Ompoc
saw Canceran approach one of the counters in Ororama; that
Canceran was pushing a cart which contained two boxes of Magic
Flakes for which he paid P1,423.00; that Ompoc went to the packer
and asked if the boxes had been checked; that upon inspection by
Ompoc and the packer, they found out that the contents of the two
boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but 14 smaller boxes of
Pond’s White Beauty Cream worth P28,627.20; that Canceran
hurriedly left and a chase ensued; that upon reaching the Don
Mariano gate, Canceran stumbled as he attempted to ride a jeepney;
that after being questioned, he tried to settle with the guards and
even offered his personal effects to pay for the items he tried to take;
that Arcenio refused to settle; and that his personal belongings were
deposited in the office of Arcenio.5
 
Version of the Defense
 
Canceran vehemently denied the charges against him. He
claimed that he was a promo merchandiser of La Tondeña,

_______________

4  Id., at p. 21.
5  Id., at p. 22.

299

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 299

Canceran vs. People

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; that he did not
know the name of this man who gave him P1,440.00 for payment of
two boxes labelled Magic Flakes; that he obliged with the request of
the unnamed person because he was struck by his conscience; that
he denied knowing the contents of the said two boxes; that after
paying at the cashier, he went out of Ororama towards Limketkai to
take a jeepney; that three persons ran after him, and he was caught;
that he was brought to the 4th floor of Ororama, where he was
mauled and kicked by one of those who chased him; that they took
his Nokia 5110 cellular phone and cash amounting to P2,500.00; and
that Ompoc took his Seiko watch and ring, while a certain Amion
took his necklace.6
 Canceran further claimed that an earlier Information for theft was
already filed on October 9, 2002 which was eventually dismissed. In
January 2003, a second Information was filed for the same offense
over the same incident and became the subject of the present case.7
 
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
 
In its Judgment, dated September 20, 2007, the RTC found
Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated Theft in
line with the ruling of the Court in Valenzuela v. People8 that under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), there is no crime of
“Frustrated Theft.” Canceran 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 prisión mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen

_______________

6  Id., at pp. 13-14.

7  Id., at p. 68.
8  552 Phil. 381; 525 SCRA 306 (2007).

300

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

(14) years, eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.9

The RTC wrote that Canceran’s denial deserved scant
consideration because it was not supported by sufficient and
convincing evidence and no disinterested witness was presented to
corroborate his claims. As such, his denial was considered self-
serving and deserved no weight. The trial court was also of the view
that his defense, that the complaint for theft filed against him before
the sala of Judge Maximo Paderanga was already dismissed, was
not persuasive. The dismissal was merely a release order signed by
the Clerk of Court because he had posted bail.10
 
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
 
Aggrieved, Canceran filed an appeal where he raised the issue of
double jeopardy for the first time. The CA held that there could be
no double jeopardy because he never entered a valid plea and so the
first jeopardy never attached.11
The CA also 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.12
The CA affirmed with modification the September 20, 2007
judgment of the RTC, reducing the penalty ranging from two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prisión correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prisión mayor, as maximum.
_______________

9   Rollo, p. 18.
10  Id., at p. 17.
11  Id., at p. 28.
12  Id., at p. 30.

301

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 301

Canceran vs. People

Canceran moved for the reconsideration of the said decision, but

his motion was denied by the CA in its March 7, 2013 resolution.
Hence, this petition.
As can be synthesized from the petition and other pleadings, the
following are the issues: 1] whether Canceran should be acquitted in
the crime of theft as it was not charged in the information; and 2]
whether there was double jeopardy.
Canceran argues that the CA erred in affirming his conviction.
He insists that there was already double jeopardy as the first criminal
case for theft was already dismissed and yet he was convicted in the
second case. Canceran also contends that there was no taking of the
Pond’s cream considering that “the information in Criminal Case
No. 2003-141 admits the act of the petitioner did not produce the
crime of theft.”13 Thus, absent the element of taking, the felony of
theft was never proved.
In its Comment,14 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
contended that there was no double jeopardy as the first jeopardy
never attached. The trial court dismissed the case even before
Canceran could enter a plea during the scheduled arraignment for
the first case. Further, the prosecution proved that all the elements of
theft were present in this case.
In his Reply,15 Canceran averred that when the arraignment of the
first case was scheduled, he was already bonded and ready to enter a
plea. It was the RTC who decided that the evidence was insufficient
or the evidence lacked the element to constitute the crime of theft.
He also stressed that there was no unlawful taking as the items were
assessed and paid for.

_______________

13  Id., at p. 4.
14  Id., at pp. 65-71.
15  Id., at pp. 73-74.

302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

The Court’s Ruling

 
 The Court finds the petition partially meritorious.
  
Constitutional Right of the Accused to be Informed of the Nature
and Cause of Accusation against Him.
 
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.16 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.17
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.”18
“It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen delves into the concept of

_______________

16  Section 14(2), Article III, 1987 Constitution.

17  Balitaan v. CFI of Batangas, 201 Phil. 311; 115 SCRA 729 (1982).
18  Valenzuela v. People, supra note 8.

303

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 303

Canceran vs. People

‘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.”19
A careful reading of the allegations in the Information would
show that Canceran was charged with “Frustrated Theft” only.
Pertinent parts of the Information read:

x x x did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal
and carry away 14 cartons of Pond’s White Beauty Cream valued at
P28,627.20, 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 x x x.
[Emphasis and underscoring supplied]
  
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.
 “[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

_______________

19  Id.

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

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.”20
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.21 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.22
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.
The Court is not unmindful of the rule that “the real nature of the
criminal charge is determined, not from the caption or preamble of
the information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have
been violated — these being conclusions of law — but by the actual
recital of facts in the complaint or information.”23 In the case of
Domingo v. Rayala,24 it was written:

_______________
 20  United States v. Campo, 23 Phil. 368, 371 (1912).
21  People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 684; 294 SCRA 220, 252 (1998).
22  Section 5, Rule 120, Rules of Court.
23  People v. Resayaga, 242 Phil. 869, 874; 159 SCRA 426, 430-431 (1988).
24  569 Phil. 423, 454; 546 SCRA 90, 119 (2008), citing People v. Dimaano, 506
Phil. 630, 649-650; 469 SCRA 647, 666-667 (2005).

305

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 305

Canceran vs. People

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.25

In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor of

the offense, which was “Frustrated Theft,” may be just his
conclusion. 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 Pond’s White Beauty Cream, x  x  x.26 This averment,
which could also be deemed by some as a mere conclusion, 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.

_______________

25  Id.
26  Rollo, p. 21.

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

No double jeopardy when the first jeopardy never attached

  
Anent the issue of double jeopardy, the Court finds no reason to
deviate from the ruling of the CA.
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. This
principle is founded upon the law of reason, justice and
conscience.27
Canceran argues that double jeopardy exists as the first case was
scheduled for arraignment and he, already bonded, was ready to
enter a plea. It was the RTC who decided that there was insufficient
evidence to constitute the crime of theft.
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.28
Here, the CA correctly observed that Canceran never raised the
issue of double jeopardy before the RTC. 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

_______________

27  Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 767, 768 (1950).

28  Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136264, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA
129.

307

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 307

Canceran vs. People

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.
 
Penalty of Attempted Theft
 
The penalty for consummated theft is prisión mayor in its
minimum and medium periods.29 The penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon principals in an attempt to commit a felony.30 The
basis for reduction of penalty by two degrees is the penalty
prescribed by law for the consummated crime. Also, when the
offenses defined in the RPC are punished with a penalty composed
of two periods, like in the crime of theft, the penalty lower by one
degree is formed by two periods to be taken from the same penalty
prescribed.31
Here, the products stolen were worth P28,627.20. Following
Article 309, par. 1 of the RPC, the penalty shall be the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed in the same para-

_______________

29   Article 309(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that any person guilty of
theft shall be punished by the penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than P12,000.00, but does not exceed
P22,000.00; but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty
shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for
each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed
shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of the
code the penalty shall be termed prisión mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may
be.
30  Article 51, Revised Penal Code.
31   Reyes, Luis. B., The Revised Penal Code, Book One, 16th edition, p. 708
(2008).

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Canceran vs. People

graph, because the value of the things stolen exceeded

P22,000.00. In other words, a special aggravating circumstance shall
affect the imposable penalty.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty
should be within the range of Arresto Mayor Minimum to Arresto
Mayor Medium. In view of the special aggravating circumstance
under Article 309(1), the maximum penalty should be Arresto
Mayor Maximum to Prisión Correccional Minimum in its
maximum period.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
August 10, 2012 Decision and the March 7, 2013 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-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.
Accordingly, the Court sentences the accused to suffer the
indeterminate prison term ranging from Four (4) Months of Arresto
Mayor, as minimum, to Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months of Prisión
Correccional, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ.,

concur.

Petition partially granted, judgment and resolution modified.

 Notes.—The use of Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company’s (PLDT’s) communications facilities without its consent
constitutes theft of its telephone services and business. (Worldwide
Web Corporation vs. People, 713 SCRA 18 [2014])
When a person has possession of a stolen property, he can be
disputably presumed as the author of the theft. (People vs. Chavez,
735 SCRA 728 [2014])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.