ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

596 SCRA 1| June 21, 2007
Peralta, J.

Doctrine: There is no crime of frustrated theft since the unlawful taking is deemed completed
from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing.

FACTS
Petitioner in this case was charged with the crime of theft. It is alleged that the security
guard noticed the petitioner wearing an ID of the Receiving Dispatching Unit of Super Sale Club
and was hauling a push cart full of cases of Tide. He brought the same to the open parking where
his co-accused was waiting for him. Petitioner returned inside, brought more cartons of Tide and
unloaded said boxes in the open parking space. Just when the two started loading the said boxes
to a taxi, the security guard approached them and asked for a receipt of the merchandise. The
petitioner and his co-accused attempted to flee but then petitioner was apprehended at the scene
and the stolen merchandise was recovered. The two were brought to the PNP Station was were
charged with theft the day after the incident.
Initially, the two pleaded not guilty and posted their own alibis. Notwithstanding such, the
trial court still convicted them of the crime of consummated theft. On appeal, petitioner contends
that he should only be held liable of the crime of frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was still not in a position to freely dispose the articles stolen. However, the same
was denied by the CA, hence this appeal.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the court a quo erred in convicting him of the crime of consummated theft? -
To support his contention that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft,
petitioner relies so much on the cases of People v Dio and People v Flores which involve
almost the same factual scenario and warranted a decision which modified the respective
liability to only that of frustrated theft. A crime is said to be committed when all the
elements are satisfactorily proved and met.
Under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of theft are the following:
(1) taking of personal property (2) same belongs to another, (3) taking with intent to gain,
(4) taking be done without the consent and (5) taking be accompanied without the use of
violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon things. The operative act in theft
is the act of taking away the property of another. Evidently, the case at bar is not an
attempted theft.
Petitioner reiterates that he should be held liable for frustrated theft only. However,
the court is now constrained to rule that there is no crime of frustrated theft in this
jurisdiction because not being able to perform all acts of execution will contemplate an
attempt. And if the offender was able to perform already the operative act of taking the
property of another without consent, the same is deemed consummated. The reliance on the
aforecited cases of Dio and Flores is misplaced because capacity to freely dispose the thing
stolen is not among the elements of Theft under Art. 308 of the Code.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1