People v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two criminal cases were filed against Francisco Mercado for theft of large cattle in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. The informations alleged that the crimes were commenced in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, and consummated in Candaba, Pampanga, where the stolen carabaos were found in Mercado's possession. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pampanga declared itself without jurisdiction to try the cases, opining that the crimes were committed entirely in Nueva Ecija. The prosecution appealed this order. The Petition: The prosecution contended that the Court of First Instance of Pampanga had jurisdiction to try the cases, arguing that theft is a continuing crime and can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where the stolen property is found or carried.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Pampanga has jurisdiction to try cases for theft when the property was stolen in Nueva Ecija but subsequently discovered in the possession of the accused in Pampanga.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, holding that it was without jurisdiction to try the cases. The Court ruled that the prosecution should have been instituted in Nueva Ecija, the province where the theft was committed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that in criminal proceedings, an offender cannot be held to answer for a crime except in the jurisdiction where it was committed, as mandated by Section 6 of General Orders, No. 58. The Court explicitly rejected the prosecution's attempt to apply American common law precedents regarding 'larceny' to the Philippine crime of 'theft' defined under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In common law jurisdictions, asportation (carrying away) is a requisite element that makes larceny a continuing trespass; however, under the RPC, theft is consummated the moment there is a taking with intent to gain. The Court cited United States v. Adiao (38 Phil. 754), noting that it is not necessary for the offender to have derived actual benefit or to have moved the property to another town to consummate the crime. The intent to gain is presumed from the furtive taking of useful property belonging to another. Because the theft was fully consummated in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, the crime ended there, and no jurisdictional link was created with Pampanga simply by transporting the stolen animals. Therefore, practical considerations of protecting owners from being forced to litigate in distant provinces also support the rule that venue remains at the site of the initial taking.
Main Doctrine
The jurisdiction for theft lies in the province where the taking of the property with intent to gain occurred, even if the property was subsequently brought to another province. The consummation of theft, under Philippine law, is achieved upon the taking of the personal property with intent to gain, without the need for actual gain or removal to another location.