GR NO.

160188

VALENZUELA VS PP

FACTS:

Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the

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

A crime of theft was charged to Valenzuela and Calderon. In a

Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and
Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.

Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner Valenzuela 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
disposed of the articles stolen.

ISSUE: Whether or not Valenzuela is guilty of Frustrated Theft.

RULING:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated

when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following
elements should be present – (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking
be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished
without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force
upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is
deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the
property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued
from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and
can only be attempted or consummated.