CASE DIGEST: Valenzuela v. People, GR No.

160188
Title: Valenzuela v. People, GR No. 160188
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code;
Stages of theft

Facts:
While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he 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.

Held:
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.
SUBJECT : THEFT

G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner,

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

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

FACTS:
Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) was charged by the RTC of Quezon City and was
found guilty of the crime of CONSUMATED THEFT on account of their taking cartons of grocery items (detergents) from
a supermarket, based on the testimonies of witnesses particularly that of Lorenzo Lago, a security guard of said
supermarket, positively identifying the petitioners as the perpetrators of said crime.
Petitioner effectively concedes having performed the felonious acts imputed against him, but instead insists that he
should be adjudged guilty of FRUSTRATED THEFT only. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued 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. The CA rejected this contention and affirmed petitioner’s conviction, hence the present
Petition for Review.

ISSUES:
1. WON there is a crime of FRUSTRATED THEFT
2. WON the committed crime is CONSUMATED THEFT

RULING:
As regards Issue No. 1 – NO. Under Art. 308* of the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of FRUSTRATED
theft or theft cannot have a frustrated stage. The essential elements of the crime of theft as provided for in said article of the
RPC is the deprivation of the property on the part of the victim and the intent to gain on the part of the offender. In other
words, theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain. To freely
dispose of the property stolen is NOT a constitutive element of the crime of theft. It is immaterial whether the offender is
able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from
such acts of execution.

As regards Issue No. 2 – YES. The Court has held that the elements of apoderamiento (unlawful taking) and animo
lucrandi (intent to gain) are present in the committed felony. Apoderamiento is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. "Unlawful taking" is most
material in this respect, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property and as such, is the element which produces the
felony in its CONSUMATED stage. Once the offenders obtained possession over the stolen items, the effect of the felony
has been produced as there has been deprivation of property. The presumed inability of the offenders to freely dispose of the
stolen property does not negate the fact that the owners have already been deprived of their right to possession upon the
completion of the taking.

For reader’s reference only (you may or may not include in your digest):
* the elements of the crime of THEFT as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (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.