Valenzuela vs.

People (2007)

Summary Cases:

● Aristotel Valenzuela y Natividad vs. People

Subject: Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated
and attempted felonies; For crimes mala in se, the unlawful act must be accompanied by mens rea for
there to be criminal liability; Elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code;
The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the
crime of theft; Theft can only be attempted or consummated; People v. Diño and People v. Flores are not
applicable

Facts:

Valenzuela and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart
complex, by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard. Lago saw Valenzuela, who was wearing an identification
card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit,” hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the
well-known “Tide” brand. Valenzuela unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon
was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with
more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking
space.

Valenzuela left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking
space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then
boarded the vehicle.

Lago proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked Valenzuela
for a receipt of the merchandise, Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a
warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident.

Valenzuela and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The
filched items seized were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3)
additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00.

Valenzuela and Calderon were charged with the crime of theft. Valenzuela argued that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theft based on two decisions rendered many years ago by the Court of Appeals:
People v. Diño and People v. Flores.

| Page 1 of 5
Held:

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated
and attempted felonies

1. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines those three stages, namely the consummated,
frustrated and attempted felonies. A felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present.” It is frustrated “when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.”
Finally, it is attempted “when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”

2. Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a “subjective phase,” or that portion of the acts
constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and
the last act performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated
crime. After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the objective phase
begins. It has been held that if the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the
crime is merely attempted. On the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed in case
of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, “subjectively the crime is complete.”

For crimes mala in se, the unlawful act must be accompanied by mens rea for there to be
criminal liability

3. The long-standing Latin maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” supplies an important
characteristic of a crime, that “ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to
be a crime,” and accordingly, there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Accepted
in this jurisdiction as material in crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as “a guilty
mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent,” and “essential for criminal liability.”

Elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code

4. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
namely:

| Page 2 of 5
 (i) that there be taking of personal property;

(ii) that said property belongs to another;

(iii) that the taking be done with intent to gain;

(iv) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and

(v) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons
or force upon things.

5. So long as the “descriptive” circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo
lucrandi (intent to gain) and apoderamiento (unlawful taking), the completion of the operative act that is
the taking of personal property of another establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond the
attempted stage.

6. In the present case, the moment Valenzuela 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, Valenzuela forfeited the extenuating benefit a conviction for only
attempted theft would have afforded him.

The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of
the crime of theft

7. The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element
of the crime of theft. It finds no support or extension in Article 308, whether as a descriptive or
operative element of theft or as the mens rea or actus reus of the felony.

8. While the Diño/Flores dictum is considerate to the mindset of the offender, the statutory
definition of theft considers only the perspective of intent to gain on the part of the offender,
compounded by the deprivation of property on the part of the victim.

9. It is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the
acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the
deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution. This in line
with “[i]n theft or robbery the crime is consummated after the accused had material possession
of the thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of making use of the thing was
frustrated.” (See People v. Adiao)
| Page 3 of 5
10. Indeed, it is held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the
moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of
the same.

11. The most fundamental notion in the crime of theft is the taking of the thing to be appropriated
into the physical power of the thief, which idea is qualified by other conditions, such as that the
taking must be effected animo lucrandi and without the consent of the owner; and it will be here
noted that the definition does not require that the taking should be effected against the will of the
owner but merely that it should be without his consent, a distinction of no slight importance.
(See People v. Avila)

Theft can only be attempted or consummated (No crime of Frustrated Theft)

12. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which
produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an
act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. Thus, under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated.

People v. Diño and People v. Flores are not applicable

13. Neither Diño nor Flores can convince us otherwise. Both fail to consider that once the
offenders therein obtained possession over the stolen items, the effect of the felony has been
produced as there has been deprivation of property. The presumed inability of the offenders to
freely dispose of the stolen property does not negate the fact that the owners have already been
deprived of their right to possession upon the completion of the taking.

14. The adoption of the rule in Diño and Flores cases —that the inability of the offender to freely
dispose of the stolen property frustrates the theft — would introduce a convenient defense for
the accused which does not reflect any legislated intent, since the Court would have carved a
viable means for offenders to seek a mitigated penalty under applied circumstances that do not
admit of easy classification. Beneath all the colorful detail, the owner was indeed deprived of
property by one who intended to produce such deprivation for reasons of gain. For such will
remain the presumed fact if frustrated theft were recognized, for therein, all of the acts of
execution, including the taking, have been completed. If the facts establish the non-completion of
the taking due to these peculiar circumstances, the effect could be to downgrade the crime to the
attempted stage, as not all of the acts of execution have been performed. But once all these acts
have been executed, the taking has been completed, causing the unlawful deprivation of property,
and ultimately the consummation of the theft.
| Page 4 of 5
15. The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to
accommodate said rulings. Again, 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. Diño itself did not rely on Philippine laws or jurisprudence to
bolster its conclusion, and the later Flores was ultimately content in relying on Diño alone for
legal support. These cases do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis, and even if they did, their
erroneous appreciation of our law on theft leave them susceptible to reversal.

| Page 5 of 5