I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW A.

Nature and definition

*** Canceran vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 206442 July 1, 2015 ***
JOVITO CANCERAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.This is a
petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the August 10,
2012Decision and the March 7, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R.No.
00559, whichaffirmed and modified the Sept. 20, 2007 Judgment of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 39, MisamisOriental, Cagayan de Oro City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 2003-
141, convicting petitioner JovitoCanceran (Canceran) for consummated Theft.FACTS:On
October 6, 2002, at more or less 12:00 noon, at Ororama Mega Center Grocery
Department,Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, Jovito Canceran, conspiring, confederating
together and mutuallyhelping 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 andwithout the knowledge and consent of the owner, did
they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take,
steal and carry away 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at ₱ 28,627,20, belonging to
Ororama Mega Center, represented by William Michael N. Arcenio. Thus, performing all the
acts ofexecution 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. They were discovered by the
employees of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from further carrying away said
14cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream, to the damage and prejudice of the Ororama Mega
Center.Version of the Prosecution: 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 orabout October 6, 2002, Ompoc saw Canceran approach
one of the counters in Ororama. Canceran
was pushing a cart which contained 2 boxes of Magic Flakes which he paid ₱1,423.00. Ompoc went
to the packer and asked if the boxes had been checked; upon inspection by Ompoc and the
packer,they found out that the contents of the 2 boxes were not Magic Flakes biscuits, but
14 smaller boxes
of Ponds White Beauty Cream worth ₱28,627.20. Canceran hurriedly left and a chase ensued; that
upon reaching the Don Mariano gate, Canceran stumbled as he attempted to ride a jeepney.
Afterbeing questioned, he tried to settle with the guards and even offered his personal
effects to pay forthe items he tried to take; But, Arcenio refused to settle and his personal
belongings were depositedin the office of Arcenio.Version of the Defense: Canceran
vehemently denied the charges against him and claimed that hewas a promo merchandiser
of La Tondeña, Inc. On October 6, 2002, he was in Ororama to buymedicine for his wife. On
his way out, after buying medicine and mineral water, an unknown maleperson around 20
yrs old requested him to pay for the items in his cart at the cashier at the amount

of ₱ 1,440.00. 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 ofOrorama, where he was mauled and kicked by one of those who chased him.
They took his Nokia
5110 cellular phone and cash amounting to ₱2,500.00; and Ompoc took his Seiko watch and ring,
while a certain Amion took his necklace. Canceran further claimed that an earlier
Information fortheft was already filed on October 9,2002 which was eventually dismissed. In
January 2003, asecond Information was filed for the same offense over the same incident
and became the subject ofthe present case.ISSUES1. whether Canceran should be acquitted
in the crime of theft as it was not charged in theinformation 2. whether there was double
jeopardy.RULINGRTC: Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated Theft.
penalty of imprisonmentfrom 10 years and 1 day to 10 years, 8 months of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 14 years, 8 monthsof reclusion temporal, as maximum.CA:
Debunked Canceran’s contention that there was no taking because he merely pushed the cart
loaded with g
oods 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 thething, even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same. 2 years, 4
months and 1 day of prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to 8 years, eight 8 months and one 1
day of prision mayor, as maximum

US vs Indanan

Facts:

Panglima Indanan, accussed is the headman of Parang. On Mar. 24, 1912, Indanan
ordered the killing of Sariol to his men Akiran, Kalyakan & Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetary
asserting that Indanan had an order to that effect from the governor. The CFI found
Indanan guilty of the crime of murder & sentencing him to be hanged.

Issue: WON Indanan is guilty of murder by inducement?

Held:

YES. A13(2), of the Penal Code declares those to be principals in a crime "who directly
force or induce others to commit it." Commenting upon this paragraph, Viada says: They
force another to commit a crime who physically by actual force or grave fear, for example,
with a pistol in hand or by any other threatening means, oblige another to commit the
crime. In our commentary on par. 9 of A8 (page 28), we have already said that he who
suffers violence acts w/o will & against his will, is no more than an instrument, & therefore
is guilty of no wrong. The real culprits in such case, the only guilty persons, are those who
use the violence, those who force the other to commit the crime. One is induced directly
to commit a crime either by command, or for a consideration, or by any other similar act
w/c constitutes the real & moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for the purpose of
inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for that purpose. We’ve already seen in our
commentary on par. 12 of A8 that the 1 who physically commits the crime may escape
criminal responsibility by showing that he acted w/ due obedience to an order; in such
case the criminal responsibility falls entirely upon the 1 who orders, i.e., upon him who
by his commands has directly induced the other to commit the act. But in case the
obedience of the inferior isn’t due to the superior & thus not necessary, & doesn’t, thus,
exempt him from criminal responsibility as the physical author of the crime, he who thus,
by his command, directly induced him to the criminal act is considered by the law also as
principal in the crime. The pacto by virtue of which one purchases for a consideration the
hand w/c commits the crime makes him who gives, promises, or offers the consideration
the principal in the crime by direct inducement, because w/o such offer or promise the
criminal act would never have been committed. But this doesn’t mean that the 1 who
 actually commits the crime by reason of such promise, remuneration or reward is
exempted from criminal responsibility; on the contrary, such circumstance constitutes an
aggravation of his crime. We have heretofore said that in addition to the precepto & the
pacto there are similar means by w/c another may be induced to commit a crime w/c also
make the 1 who offers the inducement the principal in the crime by virtue of the provisions
of A13(2). But it must be borne in mind that these acts of inducement do not consist in
simple advice or counsel given before the act is committed, or in simple words uttered at
the time the act was committed. Such advice & such words constitute undoubtedly an evil
act, an inducement condemned by the moral law; but in order that, under the provisions of
the Code, such act can be considered direct inducement, it is necessary that such advice or
such words have a great dominance & great influence over the person who acts; it is
necessary that they be as direct, as efficacious, as powerful as physical or moral coercion
or as violence itself.

Santos vs. People

G.R. No. 167671 September 3, 2008

Facts:
CFI found Santos and co-accused Pedro Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals for of the
complex crime of malversation thru falsification of public documents under Articles 217 and 171 of the
Revised Penal Code. An appeal was filed with the Court of Appeals which was partially granted. The
other co-accused died during the pendency of the case. The Court of Appeals acquitted Santos in the
other criminal cases but was held guilty of the crime of falsification of public document under Article 172
par 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Santos filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court
arguing that the CA erred in beliicioeving the testimony of the state witness with respect to one of the
exhibits which led to the guilty verdict of the Court of Appeals and not with the other exhibits.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding Santos guilty as a principal by inducement of
falsification of a public document.

Ruling:

]
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CRESENCIANO CANAGURAN, et al.

G.R. No. 108174 October 28, 1999

Facts:

That on or about the 14th day of February, 1987, in the Municipality of Barotac Viejo, Province
of Iloilo, Philippines the above-named accused, conspired, confederated and mutually helped one
another to better realize their purpose, with treachery and evident premeditation, with deliberate intent
and decided purpose to kill, armed with unlicensed homemade firearms and without any justifiable
cause or motive. Did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack, shoot and fire at
Hugo Callao and Damaso Suelan, Jr., causing with a single shot, multiple pellet wounds on the different
parts of the body of Hugo Callao which caused his immediate death and multiple pellet wounds on the
right arm and shoulder of Damaso Suelan, Jr., thus performing all the acts of execution.

The lower Court in its decision dated January 24, 1992 found all the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Frustrated Murder committed by means of
conspiracy against the victims, HUGO CALLAO (deceased) and Damaso Suelan, Jr., respectively, and
hereby sentences the above-named accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.

Issue:

Whether or not, the above-named accused are guilty of the complex crime of murder with
frustrated murder by means of conspiracy against the victims.

Ruling:

Upon examination of the evidence of record, the Court found out that there is nothing therein to
show, or from which it may reasonably be deduced with moral certainty that a conspiracy in fact existed
among the accused-appellants. The above-enumerated factors are circumstantial in nature, which even if
taken collectively, do not reasonably lead to proof beyond reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed.
The only logical inference that can be deduced therefrom is that SOBERANO and BOLIVAR were drinking
together in the evening in question with CANAGURAN, who was positively identified as the gunman,
when the incident occurred; that they were seen running away together from the scene of the crime
after the shots were fired. However, the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime does not
make him a conspirator.

A conspiracy transcends companionship. We find that the conclusion of the court that the
accused-appellants were "abettors or gave moral support" is not convincingly supported by the evidence
and even if it were, does not establish conspiracy to commit a crime.

Moreover, he accused-appellant's denial that they were at the store of Balaito despite their
being positively identified as present thereat does not lead to the conclusion that the denial was
resorted to in order to cover up the conspiracy. It is but natural for a person to resort to any means to
save himself. While we do not condone the giving of false testimony in criminal proceedings, we also
cannot discharge the prosecution from its primary duty to prove the existence of the conspiracy beyond
reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 36 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Joel Soberano, Renato Balbon and Diosdado Barrion are hereby
ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt and are ordered released immediately from confinement unless
they are held for some other lawful cause.