On 19 May 1994, Aristotle N. Valenzuela, together with Jovy
Calderon(Calderon) were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), pulling a cart with cases of Tide brand products. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket and has returned with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic which he again unloaded to the same area in the open parking space.
Thereafter, petitioner called a taxi where Calderon loaded the boxes of
Tide products. Upon leaving the open parking area, the petitioner and Calderon had fled when Lago stoped the taxi and asked for the receipt of the products. Petitioner and Calderon were arrested at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered.8 The stolen products includes four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, amounting to Php12,090.00.
The petitioner and Calderon were convicted of the crime of
consummated theft before the RTC which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. And so, the petitioner seeks that his conviction be modified to frustrated theft only for the reason that he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen when he was arrested.
ISSUE:
Whether the theft should be deemed as consummated or merely
frustrated.
RULING:
The theft should be deemed as consummated because following the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Supreme Court held that the crime of Theft cannot have a frustrated stage. The presence of the elements under RPC Article 308 and there is an unlawful taking of property, theft is consummated. In this particular case, since all the elements were clearly present before the accused were arrested, the crime that they committed was Consummated Theft.