G.R. No. 13785, U.S. v. Adiao, 38 Phil.

754
Facts.
The defendant, a custom officer, was charged with the crime of theft for
abstracting a leather belt from the baggage of a Japanese and secreting the belt in
his desk in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees. He
was found guilty of the lesser crime of frustrated theft. He appealed contending that
he was under observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable to
get the merchandise out of the Custom House,
Issue.
Is the crime of theft done by the defendant only in its frustrated phase?
Held.
No. Based on these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the crime can not
properly be classified as frustrated, as this word is defined in article 3 of the Penal
Code, but that since the offender performed all of the acts of execution necessary
for the accomplishment crime of theft. The fact that the defendant was under
observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable to get the
merchandise out of the Custom House, is not decisive; all the elements of the
completed crime of theft are present.