Valenzuela v. People

At about 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 1994, security guard Lorenzo Lago saw Aristotel Valenzuela outside the SM Super Sale Club on North EDSA. Valenzuela, who wore a “Receiving Dispatching Unit” ID, hauled a push cart of Tide detergent to the open parking area and unloaded it where Jovy Calderon waited. He returned and brought out more cartons, then hailed a taxi, and Calderon loaded the cartons into it. Lago stopped the taxi and asked for a receipt. The two fled, Lago fired a warning shot, and both were caught with goods worth P12,090. The RTC convicted both of consummated theft. Only Valenzuela pursued his appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Before the Supreme Court he conceded the acts but argued that he could never freely dispose of the goods, so the theft was only frustrated. He relied on the Court of Appeals decisions in People v. Diño (1949) and People v. Flores (1964).

1. 1Whether the theft was consummated or only frustrated; put differently, whether theft can be committed in the frustrated stage at all.

Consummated theft, and the petition was denied (Tinga, J., en banc). Under Article 6, whether a felony is frustrated or consummated turns on whether the felony was “produced” after all the acts of execution were performed. That in turn depends on the statutory definition of each felony. Under Article 308, theft is the taking of personal property of another, with intent to gain, without violence or intimidation or force upon things, and without the owner's consent. The only operative act of execution is the taking. U.S. v. Adiao, People v. Sobrevilla and the Spanish decisions they cite held that the theft was consummated once the offender obtained possession, however briefly. Diño and Flores instead made the thief's ability “to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary” determinative. That idea traces to an 1888 Spanish decision, and other Court of Appeals rulings (Batoon, Espiritu) went the other way. The Court declined to give weight to Empelis v. IAC (1984). Empelis found frustrated theft in two unexplained sentences, reasoning that not all acts of execution had been performed, which under Article 6 describes an attempt. Spanish commentators were divided, and Cuello Calón doubted that frustrated theft was even possible. Defining crimes belongs to the legislature. Free disposition is not an element of theft under Article 308. Theft is produced when the owner is deprived of personal property by a taking with intent to gain. Unlawful taking is complete once the offender gains possession, even with no opportunity to dispose of the thing. If free disposition were part of the “taking,” its absence would make the crime attempted, not frustrated. Adopting Diño and Flores would create a defense with no statutory basis and no workable standard. Theft under the Revised Penal Code can only be attempted or consummated. Here the taking was complete. Valenzuela held the goods long enough to leave them in the parking lot and load them into a taxi.