Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

Valenzuela vs.

People GR 160188
FACTS:
Valenzuela and Calderon were seen outside of Super Sale Club in SM by 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 a total value of
₱12,090.00.

RTC & CA:


The RTC convicted them of the crime of consummated theft. CA affirmed the same.

DEFENSE:
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.

ISSUE:
Whether the crime was frustrated theft? NO

RULING:
The crime was consummated theft. There is no frustration in the crime of theft because, under
Art 308, theft is committed when a person, with intent to gain, takes the personal property of
another, without the consent of the owner, without violence or intimidation against a person, or
without the use of force upon things. Based on the definition under Art 8, unlawful taking is the
only operative act necessary to consummate the crime of theft, and there is unlawful taking the
moment the offender gains possession of the personal property of another, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the said property. The moment Valenzuela took the said detergent
from the grocery, he is liable for consummated theft even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
the said detergent.

You might also like