Valenzuela vs People
GR No. 160188. June 21 2007.
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner, Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon
were sighted by a security guard at the open
parking space of SM loading several cartons of Tide
detergent on to a taxi. Valenzuela and Calderon
were then stopped by the security guard who
asked for a receipt of the merchandise. Thereafter,
Petitioner and Calderon proceeded to flee but
were then apprehended.
The trial court convicted both men of the crime of
consummated theft. However, only Valenzuela
appealed to the CA, alleging that he was only guilty
of frustrated theft citing the cases of People vs Diño
and People vs Flores. The appellate court affirmed
the conviction of consummated theft by the trial
court. Hence this instant petition.
Issues:
I. Whether under the given facts, the theft should
be deemed as consummated or merely frustrated.
A. Discussion on the basic rules on the three stages
of crime under the Revised Penal Code.
 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 critical distinction is whether the felony is
itself was actually produced by the acts of
execution.
 The long-standing Latin maxim “actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea” applied
 It is from the actus reus (the operative act given
by the statutory definition of the felony) and
the mens rea (the evil intent), that the felony is
produced
B. Statutory definition of theft under Article 308 of
the Revised Penal Code.
 It provides the GENERAL DEFINITION – Theft is
committed by a person who, with intent to gain
but without use of violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things
shall take personal property of another without
the latter’s consent. (There are also 3 other 3
other definitions of theft)
 The case at bar, applies the general definition of
theft.
 Article 308 therefore provides for only one
operative act of execution – the taking of
personal property of another
C. Fundamental discussion on the historical
jurisprudence of theft
 Roman laws and subsequent notable jurists
have subscribed to the notion of theft having
only one operative act of execution – the
unlawful taking. Therefore, theft can only be
admitted at the consummated and not at a
frustrated stage
 The cases of People vs Diño and People vs
Flores, afforded with great weight but are not
settled doctrines in themselves, provide that
theft has two (2) operative acts of execution:
the unlawful taking and the ability of the
offender/s to freely dispose of the articles
stolen. The absence of either one would admit
the crime of theft only at the frustrated stage.
(Unlawful taking + Free Disposal = Theft)
D. RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
 There is no crime of frustrated theft under the
Revised Penal Code.
 There is only one operative act of execution –
unlawful taking – that immediately admits the
crime of theft at the consummated stage.
 The other operative act gathered from People
vs Diño and People vs Flores is not constitutive
element of the crime of theft under the Revised
Penal Code. Therefore, it runs afoul of the
fundamental principle of statutory construction
of interpreting statutes so as to effectuate the
legislative intent. The inclusion of another
operative act of “free disposal” is not
contemplated in the definition nor the
classification of the law.
 IN SUM, THEFT IS COMPLETED FROM THE
MOMENT THE OFFENDER GAINS POSSESSION
OF THE THING, EVEN IF HE HAS NO
OPPORTUNITY TO FREELY DISPOSE OF THE
SAME.