US v Valdez, GR No.
L-14128 December 10, 2018 – FRUSTRATED ARSON and a rag soaked with petroleum dangling from it. The trial court held that
Facts: The house of a certain Mrs. Lewis was seen to have smoke issuing from
its lower floor. When she ordered Banal to look for the source, it was found
out that it came between a post of the house and a partition of the entresol,
a piece of a jute sack and a rag which were burning. At that moment the
defendant Valdes was in the entresol, engaged in his work of cleaning. He was
later on arrested and made a statement that he had set the fire to the said
rag and piece of sack under the house due to the inducement of other
prisoners and that he had started the several other fires which had occurred
in said house on previous days.
Issue: WN the accused has committed the crime of frustrated arson?
Ruling: Yes. The fact of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with
kerosene oil and placed beside an upright of the house and a partition of the
entresol of the building, thus endangering the burning of the latter,
constitutes the crime of frustrated arson of an inhabited house, on an
occasion when some of its inmates were inside of it.
The crime is classified only as frustrated arson, inasmuch as the defendant
performed all the acts conceive to the burning of said house, but
nevertheless., owing to causes independent of his will, the criminal act which
he intended was not produced. The offense committed cannot be classified
as consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited house, for the reason
that no part of the building had yet commenced to burn, although, as the
piece of sack and the rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near
partition of the entresol, the partition might have started to burn, had the
fire not been put out on time.
People vs Hernandez, L-31770 December 5, 1929 – CONSUMATED ARSON
Facts: Dayrit noticed that his house was on fire. Upon looking out of the
window he saw the appellant beside the house with a stick. The appellant
knew of the fact that Dayrit and his children lived and were in the house that
night. Upon investigation, it was found out that it was really the appellant
who set the fire to the house. The stick was found to have to have burnt end
the crime was only on the frustrated stage.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in ruling that the crime committed was only
frustrated?
Ruling: Yes. The appellant did in fact, set fire to the roof of the house, and
said house was in fact partially burned. With this, the crime of arson was
consummated, notwithstanding the fact that the fire was afterwards
extinguished, for, once the fire has been started, the consummation of the
crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the damage cause.
Valenzuela vs People, GR No. 160188, June 22, 2017 – THEFT
Facts: Petitioner was sited outside the Super Sale Club by a SG hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent. These were loaded in a taxi. Upon leaving the
parking area, the SG proceed to stop the taxi. He asked for the receipt but
petitioner reacted by fleeing on foot. He was then apprehended and the
stolen merchandise recovered. RTC convicted him. On appeal, he 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. CA rejected such contention. Hence, this case.
Issue: W/N petitioner’s contention is correct that the only crime committed
was frustrated theft?
Ruling: No. The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or
consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of
execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction
instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts of
execution. The determination of whether the felony was produced after all
the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory
definition of the felony. It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes
the elements of each crime under the Revised Penal Code, while the elements
in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying
criminal intent.
Indeed, we have long recognized 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.
As applied to the present case, the moment petitioner obtained physical
possession of the cases of detergent and loaded them in the pushcart, such
seizure motivated by intent to gain, completed without need to inflict
violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things, and
accomplished without the consent of the SM Super Sales Club, petitioner
forfeited the extenuating benefit a conviction for only attempted theft would
have afforded him.
There is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the
free disposition of the items stolen is in any way determinative of whether
the crime of theft has been produced.
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.
Canceran v People, GR No. 206442, July 1, 2015
Facts: Petitioner with his co accused was took cartons of Ponds White Beauty
Cream valued at Php 28,627.20 belonging to Ororama Mega Center. All the
acts of execution which would produce the crime of theft as a consequence
but, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause independent
of accused’s will, that is, they were discovered by the employees of Ororama
Mega Center who prevented them from further carrying away said 14 cartons
of Ponds White Beauty Cream, to the damage and prejudice of the Ororama
MegaCenter. The RTC ruled that there is no crime of frustrated theft and thus
ruled that the crime committed was consummated. CA affirmed. Thus, this
case.
Issue: W/N the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC?
Ruling: Yes. As stated earlier, there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The
Information can never be read to charge Canceran of consummated Theft
because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced.
Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that Canceran was
being charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran
may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
In the subject information, the designation of the prosecutor of the offense,
which was "Frustrated Theft," may be just his conclusion. Nevertheless, the
fact remains that the charge was qualified by the additional allegation, "but,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of some cause independent of
accused’s will, that is, they were discovered by the employees of Ororama
Mega Center who prevented them from further carrying away said 14 cartons
of Ponds White Beauty Cream, x x x.This averment, which could also be
deemed by some as a mere conclusion, rendered the charge nebulous. There
being an uncertainty, the Court resolves the doubt in favor of the accused,
Canceran, and holds that he was not properly informed that the charge
against him was consummated theft.
People vs Comadre, GR No. 153559, June 8, 2004
Facts: On the evening of August 6, 1995, 6 men were having a drinking spree
on the terrace of a house. As it went on, one of them notice the appellants
walking. After which, Antonio Comadre lobbed a grenade which exploded. It
caused the death of one of the 6 men drinking while others sustained injuries.
The three were convicted by the trial court with the complex crime of murder
with multiple attempted murder saying that the three conspired in
committing the crime.
Issue: W/N Georgre Comadre, Danilo Lozano and Antonio Comadre
conspired in the commission of the complex crime of murder w/ multiple
attempted murder?
Ruling: Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements
of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is the rule
that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must
be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime
itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make
him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship.

The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have
any participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set
free. Their mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close
relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering
that they performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime.

Neither was it proven that their act of running away with Antonio was an act
of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The ratiocination of the trial
court that their presence provided encouragement and sense of security to
Antonio, is devoid of any factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the
evidence on record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of
conspiracy.

Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it would be better
to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than
to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[28] There being
no conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must answer for the crime.

Valenzuela vs People, GR No. 160188, June 1, 2007

Facts:
Issue:

Ruling: