0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
33 vues2 pages
Valenzuela and Calderon were seen by a security guard hauling cases of Tide detergent from a supermarket in Manila and loading them into a parking area. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. Valenzuela argued he should only be convicted of frustrated theft as he was not able to freely dispose of the items. The court ruled that theft is consummated when all elements are present, including taking property belonging to another with intent to gain. As Valenzuela took the items without consent, deprivation from the owner had occurred, so it was consummated theft regardless of an ability to later dispose of the items. The conviction of consummated theft was upheld.
Valenzuela and Calderon were seen by a security guard hauling cases of Tide detergent from a supermarket in Manila and loading them into a parking area. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. Valenzuela argued he should only be convicted of frustrated theft as he was not able to freely dispose of the items. The court ruled that theft is consummated when all elements are present, including taking property belonging to another with intent to gain. As Valenzuela took the items without consent, deprivation from the owner had occurred, so it was consummated theft regardless of an ability to later dispose of the items. The conviction of consummated theft was upheld.
Valenzuela and Calderon were seen by a security guard hauling cases of Tide detergent from a supermarket in Manila and loading them into a parking area. When asked for a receipt, they fled but were apprehended. Valenzuela argued he should only be convicted of frustrated theft as he was not able to freely dispose of the items. The court ruled that theft is consummated when all elements are present, including taking property belonging to another with intent to gain. As Valenzuela took the items without consent, deprivation from the owner had occurred, so it was consummated theft regardless of an ability to later dispose of the items. The conviction of consummated theft was upheld.
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.