VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE

GR NO. 160188 | JUNE 21,2007

JUSTICE DANTE TINGA

 
Facts of the Case: Petitioner, Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted by a
security guard at the open parking space of SM loading several cartons
of Tide detergent on to a taxi. Valenzuela and Calderon were then stopped by the
security guard who asked for a receipt of the merchandise. Thereafter, Petitioner and
Calderon proceeded to flee but were then apprehended. The trial court convicted both
men of the crime of consummated theft. However, only Valenzuela appealed to the CA,
alleging that he was only guilty of frustrated theft citing the cases of People vs Diño and
People vs Flores. The appellate court affirmed the conviction of consummated theft by
the trial court. Hence this instant petition. 

ISSUE: Whether under the given facts, the theft should be deemed as consummated
or merely frustrated. 

A. Discussion on the basic rules on the three stages of crime under the Revised Penal
Code. 
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 is whether the felony is itself was actually produced by the acts
of execution. 

 It is from the actus reus (the operative act given by the statutory definition of the felony)
and the mens rea (the evil intent), that the felony is produced B. Statutory definition of
theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 
It provides the GENERAL DEFINITION 

Theft is committed by a person who, with intent to gain but without use of violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things Shall take the personal property
of another without the latter’s consent.

 The case at bar applies the general definition of theft. 

Article 308 therefore provides for only one operative act of execution 

the taking of personal property of another C. Fundamental discussion on the historical
jurisprudence of theft 
Roman laws and subsequent notable jurists have subscribed to the notion of theft
having only one operative act of execution 
 
the unlawful taking. Therefore, theft can only be admitted at the consummated and not
at a frustrated stage 

 
The cases of People vs Diño and People vs Flores, afforded with great weight but are
not settled doctrines in themselves, provide that theft has two (2) operative acts of
execution: the unlawful taking and the ability of the offender/s to freely dispose of the
articles stolen. The absence of either one would admit the crime of theft only at the
frustrated stage. (Unlawful taking + Free Disposal = Theft) D. RULING OF THE
SUPREME COURT 

There is no crime of frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code. 

 
There is only one operative act of execution 
 
 unlawful taking that immediately admits the crime of theft at the consummated stage. 

 
The other operative act gathered from People vs Diño and People vs Flores is not
constitutive element of the crime of theft under the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, it
runs afoul of the fundamental principle of statutory construction of interpreting statutes
so as to effectuate the legislative intent. The inclusion of another 
operative act of “free disposal” is not 
contemplated in the definition nor the classification of the law. 

 
IN SUM, THEFT IS COMPLETED FROM THE MOMENT THE OFFENDER GAINS
POSSESSION OF THE THING, EVEN IF HE HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO FREELY
DISPOSE OF THE SAME. 

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 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

RULING/HELD:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.