VALENZUELA V.
PEOPLE Ruling:
FACTS:
Aristotle Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were charged with crime of theft. On 19 May 1994,
430pm, the petitioners were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket near SM
North by a guard name Lorenzo Lago. Lago saw Valenzuela wearing an id with mark
Receiving Dispatching Unit, hauled a pushed cart with cases of detergent. Valenzuela
unloaded the cases in the open parking space where Calderon was waiting. Valenzuela
retuned inside the Supermarket and brought more cartons oo the detergent, and unloaded
in same area.
The petitioner left the parking soace and hailed a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed
towards the products and where Calderon was waiting. Lago decided to stop the taxi as it
will go out the parking, asked for the receipt of merchandise, where after the act, the two
run on foot but Lago fired a warning shot to alert the guards within the area. The two were
apprehended with the stolen items as recovered. Calderon were apprehended at the scene,
and the stolen merchandise recovered. The items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of
Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent,
the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00.
The two were placed under custody of SM Security office then brought to Baler Station of
PNP QC. Upon investigation it was discovered that there were other four perons
apprehended by guards but only the two was charged with theft.
The two claimed not guilty. Calderon’s alibi was he was in a line for ATM so he decided to
buy food from Supermarket and heard a gunshot that made him go out to check what
happened, while Valenzuela was with his cousin walking beside the Bliss complex and
headed to ride a taxi when Lago fired a shot. The shot caused him and others to run, where
he was apprehended by Lago.
The RTC ruled for conviction to consummated theft. The two appealed but only Valenzuela
filed a brief therefore dismissing Calderons appeal. Valeenzuela claims he shall be charged
of frustrated theft only for he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles
stolen. CA affirmed conviction still. He filed for Petition for Review.
Issue: whether Valenzuela shall be charged of frustrated Theft
No, the petitioner is guilty of consummated theft. The law states that Article 6 defines those
three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies. A felony is
consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present. It is 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. Finally, it is 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, or that 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. After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the
objective phase begins. It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective
phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted. On the other hand, the subjective
phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, [s]ubjectively
the crime is complete.
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.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove
or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or
which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the
same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or farm products.
The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
namely: (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.

Although Valenzuela failed to dispose the detergents, the Court ruled that there is no
frustrated theft. Once the item was taken even on a temporary time the crime was
consummated. The basis of the antecedent were disregarded by the court for it was already
untimely and not recognized as jurisprudence.

We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.
As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on our acceptance of the Dio and Flores
rulings, his petition must be denied, for we decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction.
That it has taken all these years for us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft
under the Revised Penal Code does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It
will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft
may be recognized. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative
intent.