1. Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were caught loading cases of Tide detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a supermarket parking lot.
2. They were charged with theft for taking the detergent. They claimed to be innocent bystanders.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions constituted consummated theft, not frustrated theft, because all the elements of theft were met when they took possession of the property.
4. Specifically, taking possession of the property showed their intent to gain, so the theft was completed at that point rather than being still in the attempted stage.
1. Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were caught loading cases of Tide detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a supermarket parking lot.
2. They were charged with theft for taking the detergent. They claimed to be innocent bystanders.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions constituted consummated theft, not frustrated theft, because all the elements of theft were met when they took possession of the property.
4. Specifically, taking possession of the property showed their intent to gain, so the theft was completed at that point rather than being still in the attempted stage.
1. Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were caught loading cases of Tide detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a supermarket parking lot.
2. They were charged with theft for taking the detergent. They claimed to be innocent bystanders.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions constituted consummated theft, not frustrated theft, because all the elements of theft were met when they took possession of the property.
4. Specifically, taking possession of the property showed their intent to gain, so the theft was completed at that point rather than being still in the attempted stage.
1. Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were caught loading cases of Tide detergent into a taxi by a security guard at a supermarket parking lot.
2. They were charged with theft for taking the detergent. They claimed to be innocent bystanders.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions constituted consummated theft, not frustrated theft, because all the elements of theft were met when they took possession of the property.
4. Specifically, taking possession of the property showed their intent to gain, so the theft was completed at that point rather than being still in the attempted stage.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
Valenzuela v. People was caught by Lago.
G.R. No. 160188 8. RTC: Consummated theft
June 21, 2007 | Tinga, J. | Art. 6 – stages of execution ISSUE: 1. WON they should be charged with frustrated theft. – NO.
PETITIONER: Aristotel Valenzuela, Jovy Calderon
RATIO: RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines (Lorenzo Lago) 1. Petitioners cite 2 decisions by the CA as their basis for a conviction of DOCTRINE: Frustrated felony – when the offender performs all the acts of frustrated theft: execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, o People v Diño (1931) - Accused was a driver employed by the nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the US Army. He drove his truck into the port to unload materials perpetrator. for the US Army personnel. After unloading, he drove away his truck but as he was stopped at a military checkpoint and FACTS: inspected, 3 boxes of army rifles were found in his truck. 1. Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super o CA: Frustrated theft because accused’s intent was to let the Sale Club (supermarket inside SM North Edsa complex) by Lorenzo boxes pass through the checkpoint and would only be Lago, a security guard. consummated then 2. Valenzuela was hauling a push cart with cases of Tide detergent. He was Theft involves the ability of the thief to dispose freely wearing an ID with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)”. He of the articles stolen, even if it were more or less unloaded these in an open parking space where Calderon was waiting. momentary Valenzuela went back inside the supermarket and came out with more o People v Flores (1946) - Accused was a checker of Luzon cartons of Tide and unloaded them again. Stevedoring Company and issued a receipt for an empty sea van 3. They hailed a taxi and loaded the cartons of Tide inside the taxi. to the truck driver. When the sea van was inspected by the 4. Lago stopped the taxi as it was leaving the parking area. He asked for the guards, it was discovered that the “empty” sea van contained receipt of the merchandise but when he did so, Valenzuela and Calderon other merchandise. fled on foot. o CA: Frustrated theft 5. Lago fired a warning shot and his fellow security guards and him 2. Elements of theft (Art 308): apprehended the accused at the scene. 1. Unlawful taking of personal property (apoderamiento) 6. The two accused were charged with theft. 2. Property belongs to another 7. Defense of the accused: Valenzuela and Calderon were both innocent 3. Intent to gain (animo lucrandi) bystanders. 4. Without consent of the owner o Calderon was at SM with his neighbor to withdraw from his 5. Without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or ATM, but since the line was long, they decided to buy snacks. force upon things While they were eating, they heard the gunshot fired by Lago, 3. So long as the circumstances include animo lucrandi and apoderamiento, so they headed outside. They were grabbed by Lago and other there is the completion of the operative act, which is the taking of the security guards personal property of another with intent to gain. o Valenzuela was with his cousin at the parking lot and were o Already beyond the attempted stage going to ride a tricycle when the saw Lago fire the shot. He and 4. In this case: the moment petitioner obtained physical possession of the other people in the scene ran because of this, but Valenzuela cases of detergent and loaded them in the pushcart, it is no longer attempted theft. 5. Not frustrated theft, but consummated theft: o Factors to consider for a frustrated felony (Art 6) 1. Felony is not produced 2. Such failure is due to causes independent of the will of the perpetrator o Theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of another without his consent o Ability to dispose of the things taken, even if only momentary, is not an element of the felony