Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Valenzuela v. People

    Uploaded by

    Riann Bilbao
    6 views1 page
    Valenzuela and Caldron were caught loading cartons of detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a parking lot. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. The trial court convicted them of theft. Valenzuela argued on appeal that the theft was only frustrated as in prior cases where the thief was caught before exiting. The Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, theft is considered consummated once unlawful taking and deprivation of property occurs, regardless of ability to dispose of the items. The appeal was denied.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Valenzuela and Caldron were caught loading cartons of detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a parking lot. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. The trial court convicted them of theft. Valenzuela argued on appeal that the theft was only frustrated as in prior cases where the thief was caught before exiting. The Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, theft is considered consummated once unlawful taking and deprivation of property occurs, regardless of ability to dispose of the items. The appeal was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views1 page

    Valenzuela v. People

    Uploaded by

    Riann Bilbao
    Valenzuela and Caldron were caught loading cartons of detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a parking lot. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. The trial court convicted them of theft. Valenzuela argued on appeal that the theft was only frustrated as in prior cases where the thief was caught before exiting. The Court ruled that under the Revised Penal Code, theft is considered consummated once unlawful taking and deprivation of property occurs, regardless of ability to dispose of the items. The appeal was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No.

    160188, 21 June 2007

    Petitioner Valenzuela and Caldron were sighted by the security guard at the open parking space
    of SM loading several cartons of Tide detergent onto a taxi. Petitioners were stopped by the
    security guard who asked for a receipt of the merchandise. They proceeded to flee but were
    apprehended. Trial court convicted both men of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed to
    the CA, alleging he was only guilty of frustrated theft citing People v Dino and People v Flores
    (scenario where thief has to exit with the stolen property through a supervised egress, was
    found out, and were not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen; In Dino – US Army, truck
    approached military police checkpoint with stolen rifle boxes and was caught; In Flores –
    checker from Luzon stevedoring company, issued a delivery receipt for one empty sea van to the
    truck driver who had loaded the purportedly empty sea van onto his truck at the terminal of the
    stevedoring company. When guards inspected the truck, the supposedly “empty” sea van
    contains merchandise).

    Issue is WON under the given facts, the theft should be deemed as consummated or merely
    frustrated

    The Court ruled that no, there is no crime of frustrated theft under RPC. The other operative act
    gathered from people v dino and people v flores is not constitutive element of the crime of theft
    under RPC. There is only one operative act of execution- unlawful taking- that immediately
    admits the crime of theft at the consummated stage. Check the Elements of theft (Article 308,
    RPC). Once the acts have been executed, the taking has been completed, causing the unlawful
    deprivation of property, and ultimately, the consummation of theft. 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. The petition is denied.

    CA decisions on frustrated theft – People vs. Diño (truck driver employed by US Army, stopped,
    army rifles almost taken) and People v. Flores not affirmed by the SC

    You might also like