Case Name Valenzuela v People

GR No. | Date G.R. No. 160188 | June 21, 2007

Topic Stages of commission
Specific felonies - Theft
Doctrine In Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.

Two theories on the consummation of theft:

Theory 1: Theft is consummated when an offender succeeds in obtaining physical possession
of the stolen item, no matter how momentary (US v Adiao, People v Sobrevilla, decisions of
Supreme Court of Spain)
Theory 2: Theft is consummated when the actor freely disposes of the stolen articles/goods
(doctrine from People v Diño and People v Flores)

This jurisdiction follows Theory 1.

Parties involved Petitioner: ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD
Respondents: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS
Ponente Tinga, J.
General Summary Lago, a security guard at SM, sighted petitioner Valenzuela and Calderon unloading cases of
detergent from the Super Sale Club supermarket and loading them into a taxi. Lago stopped
the taxi as it was about to leave and demanded the petitioner provide the receipt of the
merchandise. Valenzuela and Calderon abruptly took off on foot and Lago fired a warning shot
to alert fellow security personnel. The stolen goods worth P12,090 was recovered and
Valenzuela and Calderon were captured on the spot. The Quezon City RTC found them both
guilty of consummated theft. Both filed a notice of appeal, but only Valenzuela filed a brief
before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues that he should only be convicted of frustrated
theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose
of the stolen goods. CA affirmed RTC’s conviction. Petitioner raised this petition to the
Supreme Court and contended that he is guilty of frustrated theft and not consummated
theft. The SC ruled that the petitioner is guilty of consummated theft as frustrated theft does
not exist in this jurisdiction.

Facts
• In May 1994, the petitioner, Valenzuela, and Calderon were sighted outside a supermarket in SM North EDSA by
security guard Lorenzo Lago (Lago). Lago saw the petitioner, who was wearing an ID with the mark "Receiving
Dispatching Unit (RDU)," unloading cases of detergent Tide Ultramatic in an open parking space where Calderon
was waiting. The petitioner left the parking area and called a taxi then directed it to the area where Calderon was
waiting.
• Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi and then boarded the vehicle. Lago stopped the taxi
as it was leaving the open parking area and asked the petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise but the petitioner
and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot.
• Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. The petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise with an aggregate value of P12,090.00 was recovered –
the stolen items seized were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3)
additional cases of detergent
• Pleading not guilty, Valenzuela and Calderon both claimed to have been innocent bystanders in the vicinity
o Calderon alleged that on the afternoon of the incident, he was at the Super Sale Club to withdraw from
his ATM account, accompanied by his neighbor, Leoncio Rosulada. As the queue for the ATM was long,
Calderon and Rosulada decided to buy snacks inside the supermarket. It was while they were eating that
they heard the gunshot fired by Lago, leading them to head out of the building to check what was
 transpiring. As they were outside, they were suddenly "grabbed" by a security guard, thus commencing
their detention.
o Meanwhile, the petitioner testified during the trial that he and his cousin, Gregorio Valenzuela, had been
at the parking lot, walking beside the nearby BLISS complex and headed to ride a tricycle going to Pag-asa,
when they saw the security guard Lago fire a shot. The gunshot caused him and the other people at the
scene to start running, at which point he was apprehended by Lago and brought to the security office.
• The RTC convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. They were sentenced to an
indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor
as maximum
• Petitioner then argued before the Court of Appeals that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at
the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen. Petitioner
conceded both his felonious intent and his actual participation in the theft he was charged with. However, the
Court of Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. Hence the present Petition for
Review

Issue/s
• Whether the petitioner is merely guilty of frustrated theft

Ruling

• No. The petitioner is guilty of consummated theft. Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated
theft and the Supreme Court declined to adopt the Diño and Flores rulings in the jurisdiction. They contended that
considerable amendments to the Revised Penal Code will be required to recognize frustrated theft.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Cost against petitioner.

Reasoning
• Legal basis: Revised Penal Code, Article 6 and Article 308
o Art. 6, Stages of crimes: A felony is consummated "when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present."
o Art. 308, Elements of theft: (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.
• Application in the case at bar:
o To ascertain whether the theft is consummated or frustrated, it is necessary to inquire as to how exactly
the felony of theft is "produced."
o Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308, there is one apparent answer provided
in the language of the law — that theft is already produced upon the “taking of personal property of
another without the latter’s consent."

• The SC is satisfied 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 the stolen merchandise
onto a taxicab.

Separate Opinions (if any)

• N/a