ARISTOTLE VALENZUELA vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 160188
Date
Ponente

SUBJECT MATTER:
II. Felonies

DOCTRINE(S):
Only for digests for PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS.

LEGAL BASIS
Revised Penal Code, Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or
object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and
without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm
products.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

Ex. PETITION to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President.

Petitioner(s): Aristotle Valenzuela

Parties
Respondent(s): The People of the Philippines

SUMMARY:
Aristotle Valenzuela and Jory Calderon attempted to steal P12,090 worth of detergent and other cleaning supplies from SM
North EDSA. They were apprehended by security guard Lorenzo Lago, and where subsequently charged with theft. Valenzuela and
Calderon were then found guilty of consummated theft, although Valenzuela argues that they can only be guilty of frustrated theft,
as they were never able to vacate the SM premises completely nor had the position to dispose of the stolen goods.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● May 19, 1994, at around 4:30 p.m. – Aristotle Valenzuela was carting out cases of Tide detergent, from the Super Sale Club
supermarket inside SM North EDSA to an open parking space where Jory Calderon was waiting. For 5 minutes, Valenzuela
would cart out cases of detergent to the waiting Calderon; all this was eventually spotted by security guard Lorenzo Lago.
Valenzuela hailed a taxi and, together with Calderon, loaded the stolen cases of detergent into the taxi. As the taxi was
leaving the parking area, Lago arrived and halted the taxi: he asked Valenzuela and Calderon for a receipt of their supposed
purchase. Valenzuela and Calderon attempted to flee on foot, and Lago immediately fired a warning shot. Valenzuela and
Calderon were apprehended, and finally brought to SM Security.
● Valenzuela and Calderon were charged with theft; Regional Trial Court found them guilty of Consummated Theft.

C2023(MARTIN) – CRIM 1, LOPEZ

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):
1. WoN Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft, rather than consummated theft. -- NO
RATIO:
1. NO, Valenzuela is NOT guilty of frustrated theft. Frustrated theft would only occur if the theft “[does] not produce [such
theft] by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.” To “not produce” theft is to not “take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent.” The moment Valenzuela and Calderon took the goods from the premises,
the theft was already consummated.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against the petitioner.

C2023(MARTIN) – CRIM 1, LOPEZ