THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORENZO GLORIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The lone issue posed in this appeal is one on double jeopardy.

Accused-appellant submits that having been convicted by
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch IV (Guimba) in Crimi­nal
Cases Nos.
92-G, 93-G & 94-G of theft of large cattle belonging to Donato Corpuz committed on April 18, 1971, in Sto.
Domingo, Nueva Ecija, he can no longer be charged, tried, and
sentenced by Branch VI (Cabanatuan) of the same Court of First Instance for the
same offense of theft of large cattle belonging to Donato
Corpuz committed in Sto.
Domingo, Nueva Ecija on
April 18, 1971, and that the judgment imposed upon him in the latter case [Criminal
Case No. SD-3 (72)] by Judge Florencio Villamor should be set aside.

The following are not in dispute:

Appellant Lorenzo Gloria was accused with two others before the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
Guimba Branch, of Theft of large cattle in three
separate cases under an Information which alleged that in March, 1971, in Guimba, Nueva Ecija,
the accused stole certain carabaos belonging to
Jacinto Sebastian, Simeon Makasiki, and Florentino Salcedo, respectively.

After trial, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Placido
Ramos, found a variance between the allegations in the Informations
and the proof submitted in that the alleged theft was committed on April 18, 1971, in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, and that the stolen carabaos
belonged to Donato
Corpuz.  The
Judge accordingly convicted appellant of “Theft of large cattle
belonging to Donato Corpuz
committed on April 18, 1971 in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija,” and sentenced him to an indeterminate
penalty of FIVE (5) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and TEN (10) DAYS of prision correccional,
as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS of prision
mayor as maximum.  In the dispositive portion of the decision it was expressly stated
that the judgment operated as a bar to Lorenzo Gloria’s prosecution in a
criminal case for theft of large cattle then pending preliminary investigation
before the municipal court of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

The foregoing decision of Judge Ramos was appealed to the Court
of Appeals under CA-G.R. Nos. 13626-13628-CR, with appellant raising the
principal issue that the trial Court erred in convicting him of a crime not
charged in the respective Informations filed against
him.  The appeal was certified to this
Court by the Court of Appeals as it in­volved purely a question of law and it
was docketed here under G.R. L-37176-78.

In the meantime however
another case of theft of large cattle was filed against appellant
Lorenzo Gloria before Branch VI (Cabanatuan
City) in which he was accused of having
stolen certain carabaos on April 18, 1971 belonging to Donato Corpuz in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.  [Criminal
Case No. SD-3 (72)] Lorenzo Gloria pleaded double jeopardy invoking the
judgment of conviction rendered by the Guimba Court for the same
offense.  The plea was discarded by Judge
Florencio Villamor who
reasoned out that the subject matter of the second Information was entirely
distinct and different from the first complaint filed before the Guimba Branch, and that the decision of the Guimba Court was not yet final
as the same was pending appeal before the Court of Appeals.  Judge Villamor
convicted and sentenced Lorenzo Gloria for theft of large cattle.  This decision of Judge Villamor
was appealed to the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R.
14345 which was also certified to
Us by reason of the issues involved.  It
is this appeal which is now the subject of this Decision.

During the pendency of the
above-mentioned cases, Lorenzo Gloria withdrew his appeal in G.R.
L-37176-78.  In Our Resolution of July 8, 1977, the withdrawal of appeal
was approved.

The question which confronts Us is whether or not the decision
handed down by Judge Villamor in Criminal Case No.
SD-3 (72) places the appellant Lorenzo
Gloria in jeopardy of a second conviction for the same offense of theft of
large cattle.

Nemo debet
bis puniri pro uno delicto.  An accused shall not be twice put in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense.  This
is one of the basic rights guaranteed in the Philippine Constitution,^[1]
which finds its roots in centuries – old struggle of man for freedom against
“the constant menace of a never-ending charge” which results in harrassment to one’s peace of mind and continuous threat to
one’s physical liberty.^[2]

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.^[3]

The parties now concede that the first conviction was based on a
valid complaint and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.  Whatever ground there was for challenging
that first conviction was waived by the accused-appellant when he withdrew his
appeal thereby rendering the decision of Judge Ramos final and executory.

What is in issue is whether or not the first conviction is for an
offense identical to that charged in the second case filed with the Court
of First Instance in Cabanatuan City for which
appellant has also been sentenced.

The Solicitor General representing the People submits that the
respective Informations in the two cases show that
they allege or charge different offenses. 
We hold, however, that the two convictions cover one and the same
offense.

If We will be guided solely by the wordings in the Information
filed before the Guimba Court, it would indeed appear
that appellant was accused of theft of
large cattle belonging to Jacinto Sebastian, Simeon Makasiki
and Florentino Salcedo;
however, the reality is that the evi­dence adduced in that first case
proved that two carabaos, “one male and one
female”, were stolen by appellant on April 18, 1971, from Donato Corpuz in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.  The
accusation was therefore deemed amended by the evidence adduced by the People
for which reason Judge Ramos convicted appellant herein of theft of large
cattle belonging to Donato Corpuz
committed on April 18, 1971,
in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, the Judge stating at the same time that said
conviction barred the other criminal case under preliminary investigation at
the time before the Municipal Judge of Sto. Domingo.

In the Information filed in Criminal Case No. SD-3 (72) before
the Court of First Instance in Cabanatuan
City, Lorenzo Gloria was accused of
theft of two carabaos, “one male and one
female”, belonging to Donato Corpuz
committed on April 18, 1971,
in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.  The evidence
submitted before the Guimba
Court was the same evidence offered before the
Court in Cabanatuan
City resulting in appel­lant’s
conviction by the latter for theft of large cattle as charged in the
Information.  What is significant and
decisive of the issue before Us is that there is nothing in the record to show
that the carabaos subject of the second charge were
different from the carabaos object of the first conviction nor that they were taken
on distinct occasions to warrant a conclusion that two separate acts or
offenses of theft were consummated and being prosecuted.

Undoubtedly, 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.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, We hereby set aside the decision
rendered against and the sentence imposed on the herein appellant, Lorenzo
Gloria, by the Court of First Instance in Cabanatuan City
in Criminal Case No. SD-3 (72).  No
costs.

So Ordered.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Martin, and
Fernandez, JJ., concur.

Guerrero, J., no part.

^[1]
Art. III, Sec. 1 (20), 1935 Constitution; Art. IV, Sec. 22, 1973 Constitution

^[2]
see Julia vs. Sotto, 1903, 2 Phil. 247, 252

^[3]
Rule 117, Sec. 9; Moran on Rules of Court, 1970 Ed. Vol. 4, pp. 242-243