Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

CASE DIGEST IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE EDGARDO LEONIDO

Valenzuela v. People
GR No. 160188
June 21, 2015

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code; Stages of
theft
Facts:
While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded
them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a
taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security
guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on
foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela
and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of
Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to
freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for
Review was filed before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.
Held:
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.

SUBMITTED BY: ROSALYN P. BAROLA 1


CASE DIGEST IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE EDGARDO LEONIDO

Canceran vs. People


GR no. 206442
July 1, 2015

Facts:
Jovito Canceran conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one another with
his co-accused Frederick Vequizo, URC Merchandiser, and Marcial Diaz Jr., A Uniliver Phils.
Merchandiser both of Ororama Mega Center take, steal and carry away 4 cartons of Ponds White
Beauty Cream valued at P28,627.20 belonging to Ororama Mega Center. Thus performing all the
acts of execution which would produce the crime of theft as a consequence did not produce it by
reason of some cause independent of accused’s will when they were discovered by the employees
of Ororama Mega Center who prevented them from further carrying the 14 cartons away. So they
were charged with frustrated theft. RTC found Canceran guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
consummated theft which was affirmed by the CA with modification.
Issue:
WON Canceran is guilty of consummated theft instead of frustrated theft.
Ruling:
NO. Under Art. 308 of RPC, essential elements of theft are (1) taking of personal property,
(2) property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent to gain; (4) taking
without the consent of the owner; (5) taking away is done without violence or intimidation person
or force upon things. 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.
There is no crime of frustrated theft. The information can never be read to charge
Canceran of consummated theft because the indictment itself stated the crime was never
produced. Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime of Attempted Theft.
An accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged
in the complaint or information and on which he was tried. The crime of theft in its consummated
stage undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted stage.
In this case, although evidence presented during the trial prove the crime of consummated
theft, he could only be convicted of attempted theft only because the information did not charge
him with consummated theft and to do so would violate his right to be informed of the nature and
cause of allegations against him.

SUBMITTED BY: ROSALYN P. BAROLA 2


CASE DIGEST IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE EDGARDO LEONIDO

Koh Tieck Heng vs. People


GR no. 48535-36
December 21, 1990

Facts:
Koh Tieck Heng, alias Tomas Flores was charged of estafa and attempted estafa when he
falsified on commercial documents particularly two spurious checks. The spurious checks were
then deposited in his savings account with Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC) in different
dates. He withdrawn the amount in the first check. However, he failed to withdraw the second
one because he was apprehended by the NBI upon the report of Florencio Dycaico, the owner of
the Checking Account, which the checks appeared was issued and in the possession of the accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted estafa.

Held:
Yes. Basically, the two essential requisites of fraud or deceit and damage or injury must be
established by sufficient and competent evidence in order that the crime of estafa may be
established. The use of spurious checks is by itself fraud or deceit. The fact that appellant was the
possessor and utterer of the checks in question and having benefited from the subsequent
withdrawals, as well as attempted to gain by trying to withdraw an amount thereon, the inevitable
conclusion would be that he was the one who falsified.

Although one of the essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended
party in the absence proof thereof the offender would at least be guilty of attempted estafa.
Appellant commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but he failed to perform all the acts
of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of his spontaneous desistance but
because of his apprehension by the authorities before he could obtain the amount. Since only the
intent to cause damage and not the damage itself has been shown, the court correctly convicted
him of attempted estafa.

SUBMITTED BY: ROSALYN P. BAROLA 3


CASE DIGEST IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE EDGARDO LEONIDO

Elvira Lateo et al vs. People


GR No. 161651
June 8, 2011

Facts:
Lateo and Elca proposed Lucero finance the titling of a 122 ha land located in Muntinlupa
allegedly owned by Elca. Title to the property had not been transferred to Elca’s name because of
discrepancies between the Deed of Sale and the TCT number. Elca offered to assign to Lucero 70
ha of said land. She was introduced to Baldemor, Lalota and de Guzman.

Lucero released about P4.7 million in staggered amounts. However, Lucero discovered that
the property was not actually registered under the name of the accused when she verified with
the Registry of Deeds. So she confronted the accused and demanded the return of her money.
Petitioner failed to return the money instead offered another a 5-ha property located at Bacoor,
Cavite allegedly owned by Elca and demanded an additional P2 million for the transfer of title.

Lucero found out that Elca only had a pending application for the sales patent over a 4-ha
area of the subject land when verified with the LMB. So she filed a complaint with the Task Force
Kamagong, PACC, Manila. Entrapment was conducted that led to the apprehension of the
petitioners at Furosato Restaurant.

Issue:
WON the petitioners were guilty of attempted estafa.

Held:
Yes. Undoubtedly, petitioners commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but failed
to perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime, not by reason of their own
spontaneous desistance but because of their apprehension by the authorities before they could
obtain the amount. Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself had been
shown, the RTC and the CA correctly convicted petitioners of attempted estafa.

The transaction involving the Bacoor property was a continuation of the transaction
involving parcels of land in Muntinlupa. Indubitably, petitioners parody that Elca owned 14 ha in
Bacoor and was offering a 5-ha portion of it, in substitution of the Muntinlupa property, and
demanding and additional P2 million from Lucero, constituted fraud and deceit as elements of
estafa.

SUBMITTED BY: ROSALYN P. BAROLA 4


CASE DIGEST IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SUBMITTED TO : JUDGE EDGARDO LEONIDO

Quidet vs. People


GR no. 170389
April 8, 2010

Facts:
Quidet, Taban and Tubo (only Quidet was the petitioner) were charged with homicide for
the death of Jimmy Tagarda and also charged with frustrated homicide for the stab wounds
sustained by the victims’s cousin, Andrew Tagarda, arising from the same incident.

RTC found Quidet and Tubo guilty of homicide and all the three accused for frustrated
homicide. The trial court found that the stabbing of Jimmy was previously planned by the accused.
The active participation of the accused proved conspiracy in the commission of the crimes.

CA held that conspiracy was duly established as shown by the concerted acts of the
accused in inflicting mortal wounds on Jimmy. Hence, all the accused are guilty of homicide for
Jimmy’s death. With respect to Andrew, the crime committed was merely attempted homicide.

Issue:
WON there was conspiracy.

Held:
No. There were several facts of substance which militate against the finding that Quidet
conspired with Taban and Tubo.

First, there is no evidence that petitioner, Taban, and Tubo had any grudge or enmity
against Jimmy or Andrew.

Second, the stabbing incident appears to have arisen from a purely accidental encounter
between Taban’s and Andrew’s groups which both having drinking session.

Third, unlike Taban and Tubo, Quidet was unarmed during the incident, thus negating his
intent to kill the victims.

By the prosecution account, petitioner’s participation was limited to boxing Andrew and
Jimmy after Taban and Tubo had stabbed the victims.

SUBMITTED BY: ROSALYN P. BAROLA 5