Valenzuela vs.

People
G.R. no. 160188
Petitioner: Aristotel Valenzuela
Respondent: People of the Philippines, Hon. Court of Appeals
Ponente: Tinga, J.

June 21, 2007

ARTICLE 308: THEFT

Facts: (weve tackled this before during Crim 1; the boxes-of Tide-in-the-parking-lot case.)
-

May 19, 1994, around 4 pm: While security guard Lorenzo Lago was manning his post in the
parking lot outside the Super Sale Club supermarket within the SM Complex, he saw petitioner
(who was then wearing an identification card withi the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit) haul
a push cart with cases of the detergent Tide and unload the same in an open parking space while
his (petitioners) companion, Jovy Calderon, waited. Petitioner then went back inside the
supermarket and returned with more boxes of Tide Ultramaticdumping the same in the said
parking space.
They then haled a taxi, loaded the boxes in it, and then boarded the vehicle. Before the taxi left
the parking area, however, Guard Lorenzo stopped the taxi and asked petitioner for a receipt of
the merchandise. Both individuals, however, decided to flee on footwhich wasnt very
successful as they were soon apprehended by the other security guards who were alerted when
Lorenzo fired a warning shot. All in all, the goods that were apprehended from the two amounted
to an aggregate value of P12,090.00.
They were brought to the PNP Baler Station II in Quezon City, where four others were
apprehended by the security guards at the scene and delivered to police custody. By the end of the
day though, only the two of them were charged with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor.
RTC of Quezon City: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of consummated theft.
o Only petitioner filed an appeal, so the conviction of the Calderon became final.
o Petitioner appealed that given the facts of the case, his crime should only be that of
frustrated theft, not consummated theft.
CA: affirmed petitioners conviction. Hence, this appeal.

Issues/Held:
WoN there is such a thing as frustrated theftNO
-

Elements of Theft under Art 308:

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
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.
The Court recognized the contentious history of this law; conflicting line of cases and differing
opinions of commentators.
o U.S. vs. Adiao (case of customs inspector who swiped a leather belt from the baggage of
a foreign national), People vs. Sobrevilla (case of the pickpocketer of a pocketbook who
the victim caught before he was able to get away), plus several Spanish cases support the
view that theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of another

without the latters consent. The fact that the offender was able to succeed in obtaining
physical possession of the stolen item, no matter how momentary, was able to
consummate the theft.
o The other school of thought, however, as espoused by the Court of Appeals cases of
People vs. Dino (case of the truck driver in a port area who was stopped in the military
checkpoint and was caught with three boxes of stolen arsenal at his truck) and People vs
Flores (the accused, a checker employed by a Shipping company, issued a delivery
receipt for a purportedly empty sea van. It was later found upon inspection by the port
guard that said van was not-so-empty), provides that the determinative characteristic of
whether or not the crime of theft was consummated is the ability of the actor to freely
dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary.
If the person did not reach the stage where he could freely dispose of the object at will,
then the theft is only frustrated.
The Court made its clarificatory rule regarding the issue with the case of Empelis vs. IAC
(1984). This was the case of a plantation owner who caught four individuals in the act of
gathering coconuts from his property. When the accused fled the scene, they dropped the
coconuts they seized. The Court held here that the accused were only guilty of frustrated theft.
o However, analyzing the said decision carefully, the Court today cannot attribute weight to
the said case. This is because of the legal infirmities and questions that said court
decision espoused; no legal reference or citation whatsoever, and its dissolving of the
lines between attempted, frustrated and consummated. 1 The fact that this case was never
reaffirmed or cited as authority contributes to its weightless-ness.
There is also a divergence of opinion regarding the issue. (But since its mostly Spanish, I cant
write the same here.) The Courts point here is that given this contending dicta regarding the
consummation of theft, and the warring opinions of legal scholars as well, the Court is to
determine once and for all the rule as regards the issue.
The Court espouses that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a
constitutive element of the crime of theft, and that theft is produced when there is already
deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain.
o Dino/Flores dictum is not supported by the Art. 308 elements. Its like adding another
requirement to those elements, which is not the job of the Court but of Congress.
o The SC emphasizes that unlawful taking is the element which produces the consummated
felony. So with theft, its either you took it or you didnt; either attempted or
consummated. There is no such crime as frustrated theft.

Petition Denied.

1 Empelis held that the crime was only frustrated because the accused were not
able to perform all the acts of execution which should have produced the felony.
However, isnt it that frustrated crimes are able to produce all acts of execution?
What the decision described was attempted, not frustrated. That was the anomaly
with this case.