Valenzuela vs People

G.R. No. 160188 / June 21, 2007

Facts:
Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were charged with the crime of theft. On May 19, 1997,
Valenzuela and Calderon were seen outside of Super Sale Club in SM by Lorenzo Lago, a security
guard of SM. Lago saw Valenzuela hauling a push cart full of cases of Tide detergent. Valenzuela
unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. He returned inside
the supermarket, and after several minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and
again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. He then hailed a taxi and
loaded the cases of Tide inside the taxi. Lago stopped the taxi and asked Valenzuela and Calderon
for the receipt. The two reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow
security guards of the incident. They were eventually apprehended. The stolen items seized from
the duo were four cases of Tide Ultramatic, one case of Ultra 25 grams, and three additional cases
of detergent, the goods with total value of 12,090.00.

The two were first brought to the SM security office before they were transferred on the same day
to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police, Quezon City, for investigation. Eventually,
the RTC convicted them of the crime of consummated theft. It was affirmed by the CA. However,
Valenzuela (only) 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.
Valenzuela cites two decisions rendered many years ago by the Court of Appeals: People v. Dio
and People v. Flores. Both decisions elicit the interest of this Court, as they modified trial court
convictions from consummated to frustrated theft.

Issue:
Whether or now Valenzuela should be guilty of consummated theft.

Ruling:
In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the three stages of crime.

Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated and attempted
felonies.

Consummated - when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
Frustrated - when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Attempted - when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.

Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a:

Subjective phase - portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act
 which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender
which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated crime

NOTE: If the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely
attempted

Objective phase - After that point of subjective phase has been breached

NOTE: subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes

The Court says that the critical distinction between frustrated and consummated is whether the
felony itself was actually produces by the acts of the offender. In this case, the crime committed is
crime of theft, and the accused is arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated crime since
he was not given an opportunity to return the stolen articles.

Art 308 of the RPC defined theft as:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things,
shall take personal property of another without the latters consent.

From the definition provided by Art 308, the elements of theft are:
1. that there be taking of personal property - only one operative act of execution by the
actor involved in theft
2. property belongs to another
3. taking be done with intent to gain - descriptive circumstances
4. taking be done without the consent of the owner - descriptive circumstances
5. taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons
or force upon things - descriptive circumstances

In the case of Dio, it laid down the theory that the ability of the actor to freely dispose of the items
stolen at the time of apprehension is determinative as to whether the theft is consummated or
frustrated. This decision was later applied again in the case of Flores.

The Court said that "unlawful taking" is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of ones personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its
consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense
could only be attempted theft, if at all.

The Court concluded that under Art 308 of the RPC, there can be no frustrated stage in theft. It is
either attempted or consummated.

Petition is DENIED.