VALENZUELA vs. PEOPLE (Criminal Law Review 1)

G. R. No. 160188              June 21, 2007

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.

FACTS:

Security guard saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

RULING:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted (no unlawful taking) or consummated (there is unlawful taking).

• WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.