People vs. Tumlos

A single act of theft committed against multiple victims at the same time and place constitutes only one offense, such that a prior conviction for the theft of property from one victim bars a subsequent prosecution for the theft of property from another victim taken in the same act.

On November 21, 1937, Irineo Tumlos took thirteen cows—eight belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and five belonging to his son-in-law, Ambrosio Pecasis—while they were grazing together in Barrio Libong-cogon, Sara, Iloilo, without the knowledge or consent of their owners. The deputy fiscal of Iloilo initially filed an information against Tumlos for the theft of the eight cows belonging to Sobrevega, resulting in his conviction on July 15, 1938, with an indeterminate penalty.

Subsequently, another information was filed charging him with the theft of the five cows belonging to Pecasis, committed on the same date. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found him guilty of this second charge and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The lower court's factual findings established that the taking of all thirteen cows occurred simultaneously and in the same place, prompting Tumlos to appeal on the ground of double jeopardy.

• Double Jeopardy: Appellant argued that his prior conviction for the theft of eight cows barred his subsequent prosecution for the theft of five cows taken at the same time and place, invoking the defense of "autrefois convict" or double jeopardy.

• Double Jeopardy: Whether the conviction of the accused for the theft of eight cows belonging to one owner constitutes a bar to his conviction for the theft of five cows belonging to another owner, which were taken at the same time and place.

• Double Jeopardy: Yes. The conviction for the theft of the eight cows bars the subsequent prosecution, as the simultaneous taking of all thirteen cows constitutes a single, indivisible criminal act.

• Double Jeopardy: The theft of the thirteen cows took place at the same time and in the same place, constituting a single act. The fact that eight cows belonged to one owner and five to another does not create two distinct offenses because the criminal act is not susceptible to division. The criminal intent was likewise singular—to appropriate the thirteen cows found grazing together. Since neither the act nor the intent can be divided, the offense resulting from their concurrence cannot be divided, regardless of whether the subject matter is singular or plural. Because the five cows were an integral part of the thirteen stolen in a single act, the accused had already been placed in jeopardy for their theft when tried and convicted for the theft of the other eight. A second conviction would violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

• Indivisibility of a Single Criminal Act — When a single criminal act is committed against multiple victims at the same time and place, it constitutes only one offense. The act and the intent are not susceptible to division, making the resulting offense indivisible. A prior conviction for a portion of that act bars subsequent prosecution for another portion under the principle of double jeopardy.

• "The theft of the thirteen cows committed by the defendant took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, he performed but one act. The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for two distinct offenses, for the reason that in such case the act must be divided into two, which act is not susceptible of division." — This passage establishes the ratio decidendi that a single, simultaneous act of theft against multiple owners is indivisible and constitutes one offense.
• "As neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being immaterial that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether said subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one." — This defines the doctrine of indivisibility of the offense based on the concurrence of a single act and a single intent.

• Article 310, in relation to Article 309, Revised Penal Code — Defines and punishes the crime of theft of large cattle, under which the defendant was charged.
• Constitutional right against double jeopardy — Invoked to bar the second conviction, holding that trying the accused twice for a single indivisible act violates this protection.

Avanceña, C. J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.