Valenzuela v. People (2007): No Frustrated Theft

In May 1994, a security guard at a supermarket in the SM complex on North EDSA, Quezon City, saw Aristotel Valenzuela hauling cases of detergent in a push cart to an open parking space, where a companion was waiting. Valenzuela was wearing an identification card marked "Receiving Dispatching Unit." He went back inside and brought out more cases. Then he hailed a taxi, and his companion loaded the cases into it.

The guard stopped the taxi as it was leaving the parking area and asked for a receipt. The two men ran, and the guard fired a warning shot to alert the other guards. Both were caught at the scene, and the goods were recovered. The detergent had a total value of P12,090.00.

At trial both men said they were innocent bystanders. The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicted both of consummated theft. Only Valenzuela pursued his appeal. Before the Court of Appeals he argued that he should be convicted only of frustrated theft, because when he was caught he had not yet been "placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen." The Court of Appeals rejected this and affirmed his conviction. He then asked the Supreme Court to change his conviction to frustrated theft.

On the facts proved by the prosecution, was the theft consummated or only frustrated? To answer, the Court applied Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the consummated, frustrated and attempted stages of a felony.

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, denied the petition. The conviction for consummated theft stood.

The old Court of Appeals rulings. Valenzuela relied on two old Court of Appeals decisions, People v. Diño and People v. Flores. They had held that theft is only frustrated when the thief, though he took the goods, could not yet freely dispose of them. The Supreme Court had never adopted these rulings. It said they "do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis," meaning they were not binding precedent.

Taking completes the crime. Article 308 defines theft. The Court said unlawful taking is the element that produces the felony in its consummated stage, and it is "deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same." Nothing in Article 308 makes the thief's ability to freely dispose of the goods part of the crime. Without unlawful taking, the offense could only be attempted theft, if anything.

So there is no [frustrated stage](/law/glossary/frustrated-felony). The Court concluded that "under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated." Once the offenders got possession of the goods, the owner was already deprived of them. The offenders' presumed inability to dispose of the goods freely did not change that.

Applied to Valenzuela. The Court was satisfied that the taking was completed. With intent to gain, he had physical possession of the detergent long enough to drop it off in the parking lot and load it into a taxi. That he was caught before leaving did not make the theft frustrated.

The Court added that recognizing frustrated theft would take amendments to the Revised Penal Code by the legislature.

Under the Revised Penal Code, theft has only two stages, attempted and consummated; unlawful taking is complete, and theft is consummated, from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it.

Valenzuela is the rule behind everyday shoplifting cases. A person who takes goods from a store and is stopped by the guard at the exit or the parking area has, as a rule, committed consummated theft if the taking with intent to gain is proved, not "only an attempt." The penalty then depends on the value of the goods and the other rules on theft: see theft penalty in the Philippines and caught shoplifting before leaving the store.

The case also explains the three stages of a felony in Article 6. A crime may be frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution but the felony is not produced for reasons independent of his will. For theft, the Court held that once there is taking, the felony is already produced.

Made-up illustration: Rico, a shopper, takes a phone from the shelf, puts it in his pocket and walks toward the exit, where the guard stops him. Under Valenzuela, the theft is already consummated, because Rico had taken possession of the phone. Whether the case goes to court, and what penalty applies, depends on the evidence and the value of the phone.

Read the full decision on the Supreme Court E-Library (link in the sources below). For a question about a real theft complaint, see where to find legal help.