Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    renamae
    1) The petitioner, Aristotle Valenzuela, and Jovy Calderon were observed by a security guard hauling boxes of Tide detergent from the Super Sale Club supermarket at the ShoeMart complex and loading them into a taxi. 2) When stopped by the security guard, the petitioner and Calderon attempted to flee on foot but were apprehended. They were charged with consummated theft. 3) On appeal, the petitioner argued the offense should be considered frustrated theft rather than consummated theft. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft, only consummated or attempted theft. Therefore, the petitioner's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    renamae
    35 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner, Aristotle Valenzuela, and Jovy Calderon were observed by a security guard hauling boxes of Tide detergent from the Super Sale Club supermarket at the ShoeMart complex and loading them into a taxi. 2) When stopped by the security guard, the petitioner and Calderon attempted to flee on foot but were apprehended. They were charged with consummated theft. 3) On appeal, the petitioner argued the offense should be considered frustrated theft rather than consummated theft. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft, only consummated or attempted theft. Therefore, the petitioner's

    Original Description:

    Case Digest on Valenzuela vs. People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The petitioner, Aristotle Valenzuela, and Jovy Calderon were observed by a security guard hauling boxes of Tide detergent from the Super Sale Club supermarket at the ShoeMart complex and loading them into a taxi. 2) When stopped by the security guard, the petitioner and Calderon attempted to flee on foot but were apprehended. They were charged with consummated theft. 3) On appeal, the petitioner argued the offense should be considered frustrated theft rather than consummated theft. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft, only consummated or attempted theft. Therefore, the petitioner's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    35 views2 pages

    Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    renamae
    1) The petitioner, Aristotle Valenzuela, and Jovy Calderon were observed by a security guard hauling boxes of Tide detergent from the Super Sale Club supermarket at the ShoeMart complex and loading them into a taxi. 2) When stopped by the security guard, the petitioner and Calderon attempted to flee on foot but were apprehended. They were charged with consummated theft. 3) On appeal, the petitioner argued the offense should be considered frustrated theft rather than consummated theft. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft, only consummated or attempted theft. Therefore, the petitioner's

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CRIMINAL LAW 1: Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No.

    160188, June 21, 2007

    Fact Summary

    On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m, Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard of ShoeMart(SM) North
    Edsa sighted Aristotle Valenzuela (petitioner), who was wearing an ID from Receiving Dispatching Unit,
    together with Jovy Calderon, outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM)
    complex along North EDSA. Lago observed the following actions from the Petitioner and Calderon:
    ● Two (2) instances when the petitioner was hauling a push cart with boxes of Tide detergent and
    unloaded them at the parking space where Calderon was staying.
    ● When the cab approached, the petitioner, together with Calderon, boarded the boxes of the tide
    detergent with a total amount of ₱12,090.00 in the cab.

    Lago stopped the cab. As Lago sought receipt from the petitioner and Calderon, they reacted on fleeing on
    foot, and so Lago fired to alarm his co-security guards, and apprehended the petitioner and Calderon.

    First Ruling of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90, on 1 February 2000: The
    petitioner and Calderon were charged with consummated theft.

    Penalty: They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as
    minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum.

    Appeal: The offense shall only be frustrated theft, contrary to the former ruling.

    Both filed Notices of Appeal. However, it was only the petitioner who completed his brief and so it
    proceeded to the Court of Appeals.

    Case Doctrine Legal Basis


    It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they Art. 308. Who is liable for theft.— Theft is
    find expression in the criminal statute, that the committed by any person who, with intent to gain
    felony is produced. but without violence against or intimidation of
    persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
    So, in order to ascertain whether the theft is property of another without the latter’s consent.
    consummated or frustrated, it is necessary to
    inquire as to how exactly is the felony of theft Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the
    "produced." Parsing through the statutory definition consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.
    of theft under Article 308, there is one apparent
    answer provided in the language of the law — that
    theft is already "produced" upon the "tak[ing of]
    personal property of another without the latter’s
    consent."

    Definition: Mens rea refers to the offender's mental state at the time of the crime,
    whereas actus reus relates to the physical act of committing a crime. The physical
    components of a crime are referred to as the actus reus, Latin for "guilty act."
    This covers any criminal behavior, including acting and not acting.

    1
    CRIMINAL LAW 1: Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

    Issue Ruling
    The only question to consider is whether under the We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal
    given facts, the theft should be deemed as Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.
    consummated or merely frustrated.
    As petitioner has latched the success of his
    appeal on our acceptance of the Diño 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.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs


    against petitioner.

    You might also like