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 Summary (G.R. No. 216671)

Procedural History

Petitioner and Calderon were charged with theft the day after the incident. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 90) convicted both of consummated theft and imposed an indeterminate sentence (minimum two years prision correccional to maximum seven years prision mayor). Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court seeking modification of his conviction to frustrated theft.

Parties' Positions and Concession of Guilt

Petitioner effectively conceded his criminal intent and participation in the underlying acts of taking the detergent; his primary contention was legal: that, as a matter of law, the offense was frustrated theft rather than consummated theft because he had not been placed in a position to “freely dispose” of the stolen articles at the time of apprehension.

Legal Issue Presented

Whether, under the Revised Penal Code, the theft committed by petitioner should be characterized as consummated theft or reduced to frustrated theft when the accused had obtained possession of the stolen property but was apprehended before apparently being able to “dispose” of it freely.

Legal Framework — Stages of Crimes (Article 6, Revised Penal Code)

Article 6 distinguishes three stages: consummated (all elements present and felony produced), frustrated (all acts of execution performed but felony not produced owing to causes independent of perpetrator’s will), and attempted (commission commenced but not all acts of execution performed due to causes other than spontaneous desistance). Determination whether a crime is attempted, frustrated, or consummated hinges on the statutory definition of the felony and whether the acts of execution and the producing consequence are present.

Statutory Definition and Elements of Theft (Article 308, Revised Penal Code)

Article 308 defines theft as the taking of personal property of another with intent to gain, without violence/intimidation nor force upon things, and without the owner’s consent. The recognized elements are: (1) taking of personal property, (2) property belongs to another, (3) intent to gain, (4) lack of owner’s consent, and (5) no violence/intimidation or force upon things. The operative act of execution is the “taking” of personal property.

Jurisprudential Survey Supporting Consummation: Adiao and Sobrevilla

People v. Adiao (1918) and People v. Sobrevilla (1929) held that actual taking and physical possession of the property consummated theft even if the accused was observed, under surveillance, or the property was later recovered by the victim. Adiao relied on Spanish Supreme Court authorities which treated material possession with intent to appropriate as sufficient for consummation. Sobrevilla rejected the claim of frustrated theft where the accused had succeeded in taking the pocketbook even though it was subsequently recovered.

Appellate Doctrine Favoring Frustration: DiAo and Flores

Two Court of Appeals decisions (DiAo and Flores) adopted a contrasting doctrine: they held that consummation requires that the thief be in a position to “freely dispose” of the stolen articles, even momentarily. In DiAo the appellate court modified a conviction to frustrated theft because the stolen boxes were intercepted at a guarded checkpoint before the thieves could pass them through and freely dispose of them. Flores similarly applied the DiAo formulation where the stolen items remained within a guarded compound and had not been put beyond control of the premises.

The Empilis Decision and Its Limitations

Empelis v. IAC (1984) is a Supreme Court decision that had classified certain coconut thefts as frustrated qualified theft on the ground that the accused were not able to carry the coconuts away due to timely arrival of the owner. The present opinion finds Empelis problematic because it conflates attempted and frustrated stages: Article 6 requires that frustrated crimes involve the performance of all acts of execution; if some acts remained unperformed due to third-party intervention, the proper characterization would normally be attempted, not frustrated. Empelis’ brief reasoning and lack of doctrinal elaboration render it of limited precedential weight.

Spanish Doctrine and Scholarly Divergence

The contested doctrine (free disposition as determinative) traces to Spanish jurisprudence and commentators (Viada), but Spanish authorities and commentators are not uniform. Cuello Calón argued that theft is ordinarily consummated when the object is under the thief’s power and that the notion of frustrated theft is tenuous. The Supreme Court notes the doctrinal inconsistency among Spanish sources and that there is no categorical statutory basis in Philippine law requiring “free disposition” as an element.

Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Primacy

The Court emphasizes that defining crimes is primarily a legislative function; courts must interpret penal statutes in light of statutory text and legislative intent. Article 308 does not include “free disposition” or the ability to immediately make use of the thing as an element of theft. The elements listed in Article 308 focus on taking with intent to gain and deprivation of possession without consent, not on the thief’s subsequent capacity to dispose of the property.

Analysis Applied to the Present Case

Applying Article 308 and Article 6 to the facts, petitioner had already obtained physical possession of the detergent with intent to gain: he loaded car

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms