Case Summary (G.R. No. 160188)
Key Dates
– Incident: 19 May 1994, circa 4:30 p.m.
– Information filed: 20 May 1994.
– RTC decision: 1 February 2000.
– CA decision: 19 June 2003; motion for reconsideration denied 1 October 2003.
– SC decision: 21 June 2007.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions).
– Revised Penal Code (RPC)
• Article 6 (stages of execution: consummated, frustrated, attempted)
• Article 308 (general definition of theft)
• Article 310 (qualifying circumstances for theft)
– Principles of actus reus and mens rea in mala in se crimes.
Facts of the Incident
On 19 May 1994, security guard Lorenzo Lago observed Valenzuela and Calderon load multiple cases of Tide Ultramatic detergent onto a pushcart inside a supermarket and deposit them in an open parking space. After a second load, Valenzuela hailed a taxi, directed it to the parking area, and loaded the cartons. When questioned about receipts, the two attempted to flee; Lago fired a warning shot and arrested them. The stolen merchandise, valued at ₱12,090.00, was recovered.
Procedural History
RTC Quezon City Branch 90 convicted both respondents of consummated theft under Article 308 (2 years minimum of prision correccional to 7 years maximum of prision mayor). Only Valenzuela appealed to the CA, arguing for frustrated rather than consummated theft on the ground that he had not been free to dispose of the goods prior to apprehension. The CA affirmed the RTC. Valenzuela then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court seeking modification to frustrated theft.
Issue
Whether the crime of theft under RPC Article 308 admits of a frustrated stage when all acts of execution have been performed but the offender is apprehended before he can freely dispose of the stolen property.
Jurisprudential Survey
– People v. Adiao (1918) and subsequent Spanish Supreme Court decisions: Held that actual taking and possession, however brief, consummates theft.
– People v. Sobrevilla (1929): Successfully abstracting a pocketbook, even if immediately recovered by the victim, completes the crime.
– People v. DiAo (1949) and People v. Flores (1964): Court of Appeals rulings introduced “free disposition” as determinative — theft is frustrated if the offender is stopped before he can freely dispose of the goods.
– People v. Batoon (1958) and People v. Espiritu (1949): Court of Appeals held actual taking with intent to gain is sufficient for consummation, rejecting “free disposition” theory.
– Empelis v. IAC (1984): Erroneously labeled theft frustrated because coconuts were not carried beyond plantation; flawed application of Article 6 stages (should have been attempted if all acts were not executed).
Analysis of DiAo and Flores
DiAo and Flores lack statutory basis in Article 308 and Article 6. They rely on an 1888 Spanish decision and inject a non-statutory element—“ability to freely dispose of stolen property.” This criterion is neither an actus reus nor mens rea of theft under the RPC. Their doctrinal foundation remains unadopted by the Supreme Court and conflicts with Adiao, Sobrevilla, and the plain language of Article 308 (taking with intent to gain without consent).
Rejection of Frustrated Theft
– Article 6 RPC defines frustrated felony as one where all acts of execution are performed but the crime is not produced for reasons independent of the perpetrator’s will. In theft, the taking itsel
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 160188)
Facts
- On 19 May 1994, at about 4:30 p.m., security guard Lorenzo Lago, stationed in the open parking area of the Super Sale Club (SM complex, North EDSA), observed petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela (wearing an RDU identification card) and co-accused Jovy Calderon hauling cartons of Tide detergent on a push cart.
- Petitioner unloaded multiple cases of Tide Ultramatic in the parking area, returned inside the supermarket, and five minutes later emerged with more cartons which he again unloaded.
- Petitioner then hailed a taxi, directed the driver to the parking space, and Calderon loaded the cartons into the taxi and boarded it; Lago intercepted the taxi as it was leaving.
- When Lago requested a sales receipt, petitioner and Calderon fled on foot; Lago fired a warning shot to summon other security guards, and the duo was apprehended shortly thereafter.
- Recovered merchandise included four cases of Tide Ultramatic, one case of Ultra 25 grams, and three additional cases of detergent, with a total value of P12,090.00.
Procedural History
- Petitioner and Calderon were first brought to SM’s security office, then to PNP Baler Station II for investigation; four other suspects were initially apprehended but only the two accused were charged.
- Informations for theft were filed on 20 May 1994; both pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- At trial, petitioner and Calderon claimed they were innocent bystanders swept up in the confusion after hearing a gunshot.
- The RTC, Branch 90, Quezon City, convicted both of consummated theft (Decision 1 Feb 2000), sentencing them to 2 years of prision correccional as minimum to 7 years of prision mayor as maximum.
- Both filed Notices of Appeal; only petitioner filed a brief, resulting in Calderon’s appeal being deemed abandoned.
- The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated 19 June 2003, affirmed the RTC conviction and rejected petitioner’s argument that only frustrated theft was proved.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, urging modification of the convictio