CONTRIBUTOR AMBITA, Frances Rexanne U.

MODULE Stages of Execution

TOPIC
CASE TITLE Valenzuela v. People G.R. NO. G.R. No. 160188
PONENTE TINGA, J. DATE: 21 June 2007
DOCTRINE Article 6- Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. —
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the
offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a

felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
FACTS Lorenzo Lago, a security guard maintaining his post at the store's open
parking area, spotted Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon outside the
Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex
along North EDSA, at 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 1994. Valenzuela, who was
carrying an ID that said "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," was seen
by Lago pushing a push cart full of "Tide" detergent cases into an
available parking place where Calderon was waiting. He then went back
inside the supermarket and reemerge 5 minutes later with more Tide
Ultramatic cartons, which he unloaded into the same open parking space.
He then exited the parking lot and called down a taxi. He got into the cab
and pointed it in the direction of the parking spot where Calderon was
waiting. Calderon boarded the taxi after loading the cartons of Tide
Ultramatic inside. As Lago stood there watching, he pulled over the taxi
as it was leaving the open parking lot and demanded a receipt for the
merchandise, but Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by escaping on foot.
To inform his other security personnel, Lago fired a warning shot.
Valenzuela and Calderon were detained on the spot, and the stolen goods
valued P12,090 were recovered.

Valenzuela, Calderon, and four other people were taken to the SM

security office before being transported to the Philippine National
Police's Baler Station II, however the Assistant City Prosecutor simply
charged Valenzuela and Calderon with stealing.
ISSUE/S Whether or Not Valenzuela should be guilty of consummated theft.
RULING/S YES, Valenzuela is guilty of the crime of Consummated Theft.
The crime has been completed. A felony is consummated “when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.”
The following elements of theft are defined in Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code: (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
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a:
• Subjective phase - portion of the acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last
act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime
NOTE: If the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense,
the crime is merely attempted
• Objective phase - After that point of subjective phase has been
breached
NOTE: subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes
In this case, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the
petitioner's taking was completed. He obtained physical control of the
stolen cases of detergent with the purpose to gain for a long enough
amount of time that he was able to drop them off at a parking area and
load them into a taxicab.
The Court says that the critical distinction between frustrated and
consummated is whether the felony itself was actually produces by the
acts of the offender. In this case, the crime committed is crime of theft,
and the accused is arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated
crime since he was not given an opportunity to return the stolen articles.
The Court said that "unlawful taking" is most material in this respect.
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is
the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the
same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense
could only be attempted theft, if at all.
The Court concluded that under Art 308 of the RPC, there can be no
frustrated stage in theft. It is either attempted or consummated.
Hence, the Court ruled beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the
petitioner was completed in this case. With intent to gain, he acquired
physical possession of the stolen cases of detergent for a considerable
period of time that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the parking
lot, and long enough to load these onto a taxicab.