Title
Valenzuela y Natividad vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 160188
Decision Date
Jun 21, 2007
Two men stole detergent from a supermarket, were caught, and convicted of consummated theft; Supreme Court ruled no frustrated theft exists under law.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 160188)

Facts:

Aristotel Valenzuela y Natividad, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. The petition arose from an Information charging petitioner and Jovy Calderon with theft arising from an incident on 19 May 1994 at the Super Sale Club (SM) along North EDSA, Quezon City.

On the afternoon of the incident a security guard, Lorenzo Lago, observed petitioner pushing a cart loaded with cases of Tide detergent, unload them in an open parking space where Calderon waited, return inside the supermarket and bring out further cartons, and eventually load the cartons into a taxi that petitioner hailed. Lago stopped the taxi as it attempted to leave; petitioner and Calderon fled but were apprehended and the stolen merchandise—four cases of Tide Ultramatic, one case of Ultra 25 g and three other cases—worth P12,090.00 in aggregate, was recovered. They were first detained at the SM security office, then at Baler PNP Station, and were subsequently charged by the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor.

At trial both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed they were bystanders; petitioner admitted in cross‑examination some employment as a “bundler” assigned at a supermarket. In a Decision dated 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 90) convicted both petitioner and Calderon of consummated theft and imposed an indeterminate penalty (2 years prision correccional minimum to 7 years prision mayor maximum). Both filed Notices of Appeal; only petitioner prosecuted his appeal. In the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that his acts warranted conviction only for frustrated theft because he was not placed in a position to freely dispose of the stolen goods. By Decision dated 19 June 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC conviction; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 1 October 2003.

Petitioner filed the present Petition for Review to the Supreme Court seeking modification of his conviction to frustrated theft, effectively conceding his parti...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Under the Revised Penal Code, can the crime of theft be committed in the frustrated stage (i.e., is there such a thing as frustrated theft)?
  • Applying the law to the facts, should petitioner’s conviction be reduced to frustrated theft instead of...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.