Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    Petitioner was seen hauling cases of detergent from a supermarket and loading them into a parking space where an accomplice was waiting. When asked for a receipt, petitioner and the accomplice fled but were apprehended. The issue is whether the crime was frustrated or consummated theft. The court held that the crime was consummated theft because the elements of theft under the Revised Penal Code were present: there was an unlawful taking of property belonging to another with intent to gain and without consent. As long as the circumstances qualifying the taking are present, including intent to profit and deprivation of possession, the unlawful taking itself establishes that the offense cannot be considered merely attempted but is consummated instead under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    81 views1 page
    Petitioner was seen hauling cases of detergent from a supermarket and loading them into a parking space where an accomplice was waiting. When asked for a receipt, petitioner and the accomplice fled but were apprehended. The issue is whether the crime was frustrated or consummated theft. The court held that the crime was consummated theft because the elements of theft under the Revised Penal Code were present: there was an unlawful taking of property belonging to another with intent to gain and without consent. As long as the circumstances qualifying the taking are present, including intent to profit and deprivation of possession, the unlawful taking itself establishes that the offense cannot be considered merely attempted but is consummated instead under Philippine law.

    Original Title

    Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of the Philippines.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner was seen hauling cases of detergent from a supermarket and loading them into a parking space where an accomplice was waiting. When asked for a receipt, petitioner and the accomplice fled but were apprehended. The issue is whether the crime was frustrated or consummated theft. The court held that the crime was consummated theft because the elements of theft under the Revised Penal Code were present: there was an unlawful taking of property belonging to another with intent to gain and without consent. As long as the circumstances qualifying the taking are present, including intent to profit and deprivation of possession, the unlawful taking itself establishes that the offense cannot be considered merely attempted but is consummated instead under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views1 page

    Aristotle Valenzuela v. People of The Philippines

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    Petitioner was seen hauling cases of detergent from a supermarket and loading them into a parking space where an accomplice was waiting. When asked for a receipt, petitioner and the accomplice fled but were apprehended. The issue is whether the crime was frustrated or consummated theft. The court held that the crime was consummated theft because the elements of theft under the Revised Penal Code were present: there was an unlawful taking of property belonging to another with intent to gain and without consent. As long as the circumstances qualifying the taking are present, including intent to profit and deprivation of possession, the unlawful taking itself establishes that the offense cannot be considered merely attempted but is consummated instead under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Aristotle Valenzuela v.

    People of the Philippines


    G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
    Tinga, J.

    FACTS:
    Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket
    within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security
    guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago
    saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving
    Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart with cases of detergent of the well-known
    Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon
    was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes,
    emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the
    same area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the
    merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning
    shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were
    apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of
    Appeals, petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the
    time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the
    articles stolen.

    ISSUE:
    Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft?

    HELD:
    The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for in Article 308
    of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that
    said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that
    the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
    accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
    things. There was no need of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property
    to constitute an unlawful taking.
    So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present, including
    animo lucrandi and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act that is the taking
    of personal property of another establishes, at least, that the transgression went beyond
    the attempted stage. Insofar as we consider the present question, unlawful taking is most
    material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal
    property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same
    time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted
    theft, if at all. With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308 of
    the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
    attempted or consummated.

    You might also like