Aristotel Valenzuela y Natividad v.

People of the Philippines

Facts:

Sometime in May 199, the petitioner and Jovy Calderon were seen outside the Super
Sale Club supermarket. by Lorezon Lago, a security guard, manning his post outside
the Super Sale club supermarket. Lago saw the petioner wearing an identification
card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)”, hauling a push cart with
cases of detergent of the brand “Tide”. Petitioner unloaded the cases in an open
parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Five minutes later, the petitioner
emerged with more cartons of Tide and again unloaded these boxes to the same
area. The petitioner hailed a taxi and loaded the cartons to the vehicle; Lago saw all
of these. As the taxi was leaving the Lago then preceded to stop the taxi and
subsequently asked the petitioner for the receipt of the merchandise. The petitioner
and Calderon reacted by fleeting on foot., but Lago filed a warnig shot to alert his
fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at
the scene, and the stolen merchandise worth P 12,090 was recovered.

The two pleaded not guilty. Calderon insisted that her was with his cousin at the
time he heard the gunshot while Valenzuela was with a friend to buy snacks.

RTC convicted the appellants guilty of consummated theft; the decision was
affirmed by the CA. Petitioner contends that he was never placed in a position to
freely dispose the stolen merchandise, hence, he should only be charged of
frustrated theft.

Issue: Whether or not Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft

Ruling:

No. The petition was denied.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal code provides the three stages of felony, namely
consummated, frustrated and attempted. In determination whether a crime is
frustrated or consummated, the critical distinction provides for that the felony itself
was produced by the acts of execution.

Article 308 states that, in the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present: first, that there be taking of a personal property; second, that the said
property belongs to another; third, that the taking be done with intent to gain;
fourth, that the taking be done without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.

The court, in determining if whether the theft was consummate or frustrated,

applied Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code. There are clearly two determinative
factors to consider: that the felony is not produced, and that such failure is due to
the causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In using Article 308 of the
RPC, there is one apparent answer provided –that theft is already produced upon
taking of personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

In the case at bar, the court held that the taking by the petitioner was completed in
this case. There was an intent to gain and that he acquired the physical possession of
the stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time. Unlawful taking is
deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even
if he has no opportunity to dispose the same.

With such consideration, and under Article 308 of the RPC, theft cannot be
frustrated. Theft can only be attempted or frustrated.