VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE FACTS: -Lago, a security guard of the supermarket, Super Sale Club, saw Valenzuela and Calderon

wearing an I.D. with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit" and they wer e pushing a cart with cases of detergent. Then they unloaded the cases in an ope n parking space Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket then later came out with more cartons of the detergent then placed it on the same spot. He then called for a taxi and directed it toward the parking space then Calderon loaded the cartons inside the taxi and boarded the vehicle. -Lago stopped the taxi then asked Valenzuela and Calderon for a receipt. The two reacted by fleeing on foot so Lago fired a warning shot to alert the other guar ds. -Valenzuela and Calderon were apprehended and the merchandises returned. The two had been convicted of the crime of consumated theft. -In CA, Valenzuela argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft s ince, when he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position dispose of the stolen merchadise. ISSUE: Should Valenzuela be convicted of frustrated theft instead of consumated theft? HELD: The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated necessitates a n initial concession that all of the acts of execution have been performed by th e offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was ac tually produced by the acts of execution. The determination of whether the felon y was produced after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the pa rticular statutory definition of the felony. The following are elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revise d Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that s aid 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 p ersons or force upon things. Theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of another without the latter s consent. Thus, the petition is denied.