Dominador S.

Lagare III
Plato Class
Legal Research Requirement






























Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela
Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Court of Appeals

FACTS: The security guard manning his post 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.
Unsatisfied, he then returned inside the supermarket, and emerged with
more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security
guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. 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 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Accused now
seeks the Supreme Court that he be convicted only of frustrated theft.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed is frustrated theft.

HELD: No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code 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
intimidation 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.




Petitioner: United States
Respondent: Tomas Adiao

FACTS: Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstractd a leather belt valued at
P0.80 from the baggage of a Japanese named T. Murakami. He kept the belt
in his desk at the Custom House, where it was found by other customs
employees. He was then charged with the crime of theft in the Municipal
Court of the city of Manila; however the trial court found him guilty of
frustrated theft. He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the City of
Manila and the decision of the Municipal Court was affirmed and he was
sentence to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs. The defendant claimed in his appeal that
the lower court erred in holding that he was guilty of the crime of theft as
disclosed by the facts appearing of record. Also, the accused contends that
he was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom House, renders the
crime as frustrated theft.

ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the defendant is frustrated theft.

HELD: No, the crime cannot properly be classified as frustrated. The
defendant has performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the
accomplishment of the crime of theft. He has taken possession of the belt
and this already constitutes the crime of theft. The act of making use of
the thing having been frustrated, which, however does not go to make the
elements of the consummated crime. Based on a similar case decided by the
Supreme Court of Spain, thus having illustrated several situations that
constitute consummated theft, the Court ruled that the crime committed by
Inspector Adiao even if he has not disposed the merchandise out of the
custom house, evidently reached its consummation stage. There even exists
the aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in his
advantage being in such a public position.




Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Roberto Dio

FACTS: Roberto Dio, a driver employed by the United States Army, had
driven his truck into the port area of the South Harbor, to unload a
truckload of materials to waiting U.S. Army personnel. After he had
finished unloading, accused drove away his truck from the Port, but as he
was approaching a checkpoint of the Military Police, he was stopped by an
M.P. who inspected the truck and found therein three boxes of army rifles.
The accused later contended that he had been stopped by four men who
had loaded the boxes with the agreement that they were to meet him and
retrieve the rifles after he had passed the checkpoint. The trial court
convicted accused of consummated theft, but the Court of Appeals modified
the conviction, holding instead that only frustrated theft had been
committed. The Appellate Court pronounced that the fact determinative of
consummation is the ability of the thief to dispose freely of the articles
stolen, even if it were more or less momentary.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of theft was consummated considering the
foregoing.

HELD: No, the Supreme Court ruled that Dio is only guilty as a principal
in the frustrated crime of theft. In the case at bar, in order for the crime of
theft to be consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint,
so that the thief could have full control and could have fully disposed
the property.

As pointed out by the appellate court, the Court applies that the evident
intent of the accused was to let the boxes of rifles pass through the
checkpoint, perhaps in the belief that as the truck had already unloaded its
cargo inside the depot, it would be allowed to pass through the check point
without further investigation or checking. This point was deemed material
and indicative that the theft had not been fully produced, neither
consummated.

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Faustino Sobrevilla

FACTS: In the morning of April 8, 1923, Faustino Sobrevilla while behind
Mariano de Oca, the offended party; in the midst of the crowd in front of
the public market, abstracted from de Oca's trousers, the pocket-book
containing P12, which the latter carried. The defendant already had the
pocket-book, when, De Oca perceiving him stealing, caught hold of the
appellant's shirt front, at the same time shouting for a policeman; after the
struggle he recovered his pocket-book, and let go of the defendant, who
was afterwards apprehended by a policeman. Accused Sobrevilla contends
that his acts only constitute the crime of the frustrated, and not
consummated, theft.

ISSUE: Whether or not immediate apprehension constitute frustrated theft.

HELD: No, the contention of an immediate apprehension renders crime
frustrated, and not consummated theft is groundless.

The Supreme Court ruled that the mere act of the accused having
succeeded in taking the pocketbook determines the crime of the theft. If the
pocket-book was afterwards recovered, such recovery does not affect the
appellant's criminal liability, which arose from the appellant having
succeeded in taking the pocket-book.










Petitioner: Elpidio Empelis, et.al
Respondent: Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court

FACTS: The owner of a coconut plantation had espied four (4) persons in
the premises of his plantation, in the act of gathering and tying some
coconuts. The accused were surprised by the owner within the plantation
as they were carrying with them the coconuts they had gathered. The
accused fled the scene, leaving behind about 50 pieces of coconuts valued
at P50.00 and two poles, one made of bamboo and the other of wood. They
were subsequently arrested after the owner reported the incident first to
the Brgy. Tanod, and then after went to the police where Catarining, the
owner of the coconut plantation filed his complaint. After trial, the accused
were convicted of qualified theft, and the issue they raised on appeal was
that they were guilty only of simple theft.

ISSUE: Whether or not the crime having committed be rendered as
Frustrated Qualified theft.

HELD: Yes, the crime committed is only frustrated qualified theft.

In the case at bar, petitioners were seen arriving away fifty coconuts while
they were still in the premises of the plantation. They would therefore come
within the definition of qualified theft because the property stolen consists
of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation. However, the crime
committed is only frustrated qualified theft because petitioners were not
able to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the
felon as a consequence. They were not able to carry the coconuts away
from the plantation due to the timely arrival of the owner.

The Court affirmed that the theft was qualified, following Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code,

but further held that the accused were guilty only of
frustrated qualified theft.



Synthesis:

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that the following elements
must be present to constitute the crime; 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.

Generally, there is no such term as Frustrated Theft. It could either be
attempted or consummated. However, there had been cases long ago in
which the Supreme Court ruled having theft to have not reached the
consummation stage, therefore ruled as frustrated theft.

In the case of Dio, the Supreme Court found him only guilty as a principal
in the frustrated crime of theft. Accordingly, for the crime of theft to be
consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint, so that
the thief could have full control and could have fully disposed the property.
Likewise in the case of Empelis et.al, the crime committed is only frustrated
qualified theft because petitioners were not able to perform all the acts of
execution which should have produced the felon as a consequence.

Furthermore, as the years advance; the Supreme Court ruled differently
and repealed the preceding jurisprudence laid in the case of Dio and
Empelis. In US vs Adiao and Valenzuela vs PP., the actual taking with intent
to gain of personal property, belonging to another, without consent
constitute, is sufficient to constitute consummated theft. It is not necessary
that the offender carries away or appropriates the property taken. Also in
Sobrevilla, an immediate apprehension renders crime frustrated, and not
consummated theft is groundless. The Court ruled that the mere act of the
accused having succeeded in taking the pocketbook determines the crime
of the theft. If the pocket-book was afterwards recovered, such recovery
does not affect the appellant's criminal liability, which arose from the
appellant having succeeded in taking the pocket-book. Thus, Frustrated
Crime of Theft cannot be anymore invoked in crimes of Theft.