Quashal

80 SCRA 675
People v Gloria

Crime Theft of large cattle

Nature Appeal from CFI

Parties  Accused: Lorenzo Gloria

Trial Court (CASE 1)

 Lorenzo Gloria with two others were accused in CFI Nueva Ecija of theft of
large cattle under an Information which alleged that they stole certain
carabaos owned by Sebastian, Makasiki, and Salcedoa in March 1971.
 Judge eventually found them guilty of "theft of large cattle owned by
Donato Corpuz committed on April 1971"
 In the dispositive, it was stated that the judgment was a bar to Gloria's
prosecution in a criminal case for theft of large cattle then pending PI
before the MTC of Sto Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
 Gloria appealed to CA alleging that CFI erred in convicting him of a crime
not charged in the information (see: difference in owner of cattle & date
of crime)

(CASE 2)
 Another case of theft of large cattle was filed against Gloria before Branch
VI in Cabanatuan where he was accused of having stolen carabaos owned
by Donato Corpuz in April 1871
 Gloria pleaded double jeopardy invoking the judgment rendered in Case 1
for the same offense.
 Judge dismissed plea and held that the subject in the information in Case
2 was entirely different and distinct from that of Case 1, and that the
decision was not yet final as it was pending appeal in the CA.
 Judge convicted Gloria of theft of large cattle.
 Gloria appealed again to CA.

Court of Appeals Gloria withdrew his appeal in Case 1 which was approved.

Supreme Court Case 2 decision set aside

Issue and Holding: W/N the decision handed in Case 2 places the appellant Lorenzo Gloria in jeopardy of a second
conviction for the same offense of theft of large cattle. YES

Ratio: Yes. There is legal jeopardy when for the same offense presently charged in a criminal case the following
conditions are present: previous acquittal, conviction, dismissal or termination without express consent of an
accused under a valid complaint or information, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and after arraignment
and entry of plea to the charge.

What is actually disputed is the identity of the offense charged. The information in Case 1 said that the cattle belonged to
Sebastian, Makasiki, and Salcedoa. However, the evidence adduced actually proved that they were stolen from Donato
Corpuz. The information was therefore deemed amended by the evidence adduced and so the judge in Case 1 found him
guilty of theft of large cattle owned by Donato Corpuz committed on April 1971.
It was also found that the evidence submitted in Case 1 that resulted to Gloria’s conviction was the same evidence
submitted in Case 2. There was nothing in the records to prove that the carabaos from Case 1 were not the same from the
ones in Case 2, nor that the carabaos were taken in distinct occasions to warrant a conclusion that two separate acts of
theft were committed.

There is here identity of offenses because (1) the essential elements of theft of large cattle in the first case constituted the
same essential elements of the offense charged in the second and (2) the evidence supporting conviction upon the first
indictment was the same evidence which warranted conviction upon the second, viz: that two carabaos—“one male and
one female”—belonging to Donato Corpuz were stolen from the latter’s house in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, on April 18,
1971, by the herein appellant. Hence, all the necessary conditions for a plea of double jeopardy are present and appellant
comes within the Constitutional protection against being prosecuted and convicted for the second time for the same
offense.