PEOPLE v. HESSON CALLAO Y MARCELINO, GR No.

228945, 2018-03-14
Facts:
While in the market, Hesson and Junello discussed a plan to kill the victim, Fernando
Adlawan (Fernando) as ordered by one Enrile Yosores (Enrile). Sario was not part of the
planning and did not know why Enrile wanted to have Fernando killed.[
At 8:00 in the evening of the same day, Hesson, Junello, Remmy and Sario left the flea
market and we
When the group reached Fernando's house, Junello, upon seeing Fernando, approached
the latter and asked for a cigarette lighter. After Fernando gave Junello the lighter, the latter
struck Fernando on the nape with a piece of firewood. Junello then took a bolo and hacked
Fernando's body on the side. Fernando lost consciousness[13] and as he laid motionless
on the ground, Hesson stabbed him twice in the chest using a knife.[14] Hesson then sliced
open Fernando's chest and took out the latter's heart using the same knife.[15] Junello
followed and took out Fernando's liver using a bolo.[16]
Hesson and Junello then fed Fernando's organs to a nearby pig after which they cut
Fernando's neck and sliced his body into pieces.[17] Thereafter, the two (2) accused left the
crime scene, followed by Sario and Remmy.[18]Sario was on the opposite side watching the
incident. He and Remmy did not attempt to stop the two (2) accused or run away for fear
that the latter would kill them.[19] Sario went home from the crime scene[20] and did not tell
anyone about the incident because Hesson and Junello threatened to kill him if he did
so.[21]
Hesson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by treacher
CA affirmed t
The Court agrees with the CA and the People: the victim's fact of death before he was
stabbed by Hesson was not sufficiently established by the defense.
Issues:
The trial court gravely erred in making a finding of conspiracy to commit murder without
proving the elements thereof beyond reasonable doubt
The trial court inadvertently erred in failing to rule that the crime committed was not murder
but an impossible crime.[54]
Ruling:
Hesson is liable for Murder, not for an impossible crime.
Thus, the requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and (3) that
its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either
inadequate or ineffectual.[67]The third element, inherent impossibility of accomplishing the
crime, was explained more clearly by the Court in the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals[68]
in this wise:Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently
impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b)
ineffectual.
Hesson is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the killing of Fernando. Treachery was proven
by the prosecution and the same qualifies the killing to Murder under Article 248[78] of the
RPC, the elements of which are: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him;
(3) that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article
248; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Principles:
Impossible crime is defined and penalized under paragraph 2, Article 4 in relation to Article
59, both of the RPC to wit:ART. 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:x x x
x2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate to ineffectual means.x x x x
Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of the
Philippines
G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
Tinga, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the
ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was
then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was
wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart
with cases of detergent of the well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open
parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner 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. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the
merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the
scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner 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:
Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft?

HELD:
The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, namely: (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 intimidation of persons or force upon things. There was no need of an intent to permanently
deprive the owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.

So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including animo lucrandi
and apoderamiento, 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. Insofar as we
consider the present question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. 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. With these considerations, we can only conclude that under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.
Valenzuela v. People
G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007

Lessons Applicable: frustrated or consummated theft

Laws Applicable: Art. 6

FACTS:
• May 19, 1994 4:30 pm: 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 ID with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)” who
hauled a push cart with cases of detergent of “Tide” brand and unloaded them in an open parking
space, where Calderon was waiting. He then returned inside the supermarket and emerged 5
minutes after with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same
area in the open parking space. Thereafter, he 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. As Lago watched, he proceeded
to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area and asked Valenzuela for a receipt of the
merchandise but Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot. Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards. Valenzuela and Calderon were apprehended at the scene and the
stolen merchandise recovered worth P12,090.
• Valenzuela, Calderon and 4 other persons were first brought to the SM security office before they
were transferred to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police but only Valenzuela and
Calderon were charged with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor.
• They pleaded not guilty.
• Calderon’s Alibi: On the afternoon of the incident, he was at the Super Sale Club to withdraw
from his ATM account, accompanied by his neighbor, Leoncio Rosulada. As the queue for the ATM
was long, he and Rosulada decided to buy snacks inside the supermarket. While they were eating,
they heard the gunshot fired by Lago, so they went out to check what was transpiring and when
they did, they were suddenly grabbed by a security guard
• Valenzuela’s Alibi: He is employed as a “bundler” of GMS Marketing and assigned at the
supermarket. He and his cousin, a Gregorio Valenzuela, had been at the parking lot, walking beside
the nearby BLISS complex and headed to ride a tricycle going to Pag-asa, when they saw the
security guard Lago fire a shot causing evryon to start running. Then they were apprehended by
Lago.
• RTC: guilty of consummated theft
• CA: Confirmed RTC and rejected his contention that it should only be frustrated theft since at the
time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen.

ISSUE: W/N Valenzuela should be guilty of consummated theft.

HELD: YES. petition is DENIED

• Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.
o A felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.”
o 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.”
o 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.”
• Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a:
o subjective phase - 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
 if the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted
o objective phase - After that point of subjective phase has been breached
 subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes
• 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 determination of whether the felony was “produced” after all the acts of execution had been
performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of the felony.
• “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” - ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for
there to be a crime or there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting
• 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.”
• Statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens rea of the
crime is and overt acts that constitute the crime
• Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (Elements of Theft):
1. that there be taking of personal property - only one operative act of execution by the actor
involved in theft
2. property belongs to another
3. taking be done with intent to gain - descriptive circumstances
4. taking be done without the consent of the owner - descriptive circumstances
5. taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things - descriptive circumstances
• Abandoned cases:
o U.S. v. Adiao: failed to get the merchandise out of the Custom House - consummated theft
o Diño: Military Police inspected the truck at the check point and found 3 boxes of army rifles -
frustrated theft
o Flores: guards discovered that the “empty” sea van had actually contained other merchandise as
well - consummated theft
o Empelis v. IAC: Fled the scene, dropping the coconuts they had seized - frustrated qualified theft
because petitioners were not able to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced
the felony as a consequence
 cannot attribute weight because definition is attempted
• The ability of the actor “to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary.”
o We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the petitioner was completed in this
case. With intent to gain, he acquired physical possession of the stolen cases of detergent for a
considerable period of time that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the parking lot, and long
enough to load these onto a taxicab.
• Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted (no unlawful taking) or consummated (there is unlawful taking).