Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    CANCERAN VS PP

    Uploaded by

    Nick Cunanan
    Jovito Canceran was charged with frustrated theft for conspiring with two others to steal 14 cartons of Pond's White Beauty Cream. An information was filed but later dismissed. A second information was then filed for the same offense. Canceran claimed this constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Canceran could not be convicted of a higher offense than charged in the information. 2) No double jeopardy occurred as the first case was dismissed before Canceran entered a plea, so jeopardy had not attached. As there was no acquittal or conviction, double jeopardy did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CANCERAN VS PP

    Uploaded by

    Nick Cunanan
    47 views2 pages
    Jovito Canceran was charged with frustrated theft for conspiring with two others to steal 14 cartons of Pond's White Beauty Cream. An information was filed but later dismissed. A second information was then filed for the same offense. Canceran claimed this constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Canceran could not be convicted of a higher offense than charged in the information. 2) No double jeopardy occurred as the first case was dismissed before Canceran entered a plea, so jeopardy had not attached. As there was no acquittal or conviction, double jeopardy did not apply.

    Original Title

    CANCERAN-VS-pp.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Jovito Canceran was charged with frustrated theft for conspiring with two others to steal 14 cartons of Pond's White Beauty Cream. An information was filed but later dismissed. A second information was then filed for the same offense. Canceran claimed this constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Canceran could not be convicted of a higher offense than charged in the information. 2) No double jeopardy occurred as the first case was dismissed before Canceran entered a plea, so jeopardy had not attached. As there was no acquittal or conviction, double jeopardy did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    CANCERAN VS PP

    Uploaded by

    Nick Cunanan
    Jovito Canceran was charged with frustrated theft for conspiring with two others to steal 14 cartons of Pond's White Beauty Cream. An information was filed but later dismissed. A second information was then filed for the same offense. Canceran claimed this constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that: 1) Canceran could not be convicted of a higher offense than charged in the information. 2) No double jeopardy occurred as the first case was dismissed before Canceran entered a plea, so jeopardy had not attached. As there was no acquittal or conviction, double jeopardy did not apply.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CANCERAN VS.

    PEOPLE,

    761 SCRA 293, G.R. NO. 206442 JULY 1, 2015

    FACTS:

    Canceran, and Frederick Vequizo and Marcial Diaz, Jr., was charged
    with “Frustrated Theft.”

    On October 6, 2002 accused, Jovito Canceran, conspiring, with Frederick


    Vequizo, and Marcial Diaz, Jr., a Unilever Philippines merchandiser, 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, thus, performing all the acts of execution which would
    produce the crime of theft as a consequence but, they were discovered by the
    employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from further carrying
    away the cartons.

    Canceran further claimed that 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.

    ISSUE:

    1] Should Canceran be acquitted in the crime of theft even if it was not charged
    in the information?

    2] Is it considering a double jeopardy?

    HELD:

    1. No. 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.
    2. No double jeopardy when the first jeopardy never attached. The rule of
    double jeopardy 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.

    Canceran never raised the issue of double jeopardy before the RTC. 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.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy