The Supreme Court, in Valenzuela v. People, definitively ruled that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, there is no such crime as frustrated theft. The crime of theft is consummated once the offender unlawfully takes possession of another’s personal property with intent to gain, regardless of whether the offender is able to freely dispose of the stolen items. This decision clarifies the stages of theft, impacting how theft cases are prosecuted and defended, ensuring the focus remains on the act of taking and deprivation rather than subsequent actions.

Shifting Detergent, Shifting Legal Ground: Is it Consummated Theft or Merely Frustrated?

Aristotel Valenzuela was caught taking cases of detergent from a supermarket. The pivotal legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Valenzuela’s actions constituted consummated theft or merely frustrated theft, a distinction with significant implications for his criminal liability. The Court’s decision would either uphold established jurisprudence or redefine the understanding of theft under Philippine law. The resolution hinged on interpreting Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code and revisiting prior Court of Appeals decisions that recognized the possibility of frustrated theft.

To understand the issue, it’s important to define the stages of a crime under the Revised Penal Code. Article 6 classifies felonies as consummated, frustrated, or attempted. A crime is consummated when all elements for its execution are present. It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution but the crime is not produced due to causes independent of the offender’s will. And, it is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause other than their own spontaneous desistance. Thus, the key lies in pinpointing when the crime of theft is considered “produced.”

The case of U.S. v. Adiao offers some insight. In this case, a customs inspector was found guilty of consummated theft for concealing a leather belt in his desk, even though he never managed to remove the item from the Customs House. The Court highlighted the fact that all the elements of theft were present. Further, the Court cited Spanish Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that the ability to obtain full possession of the stolen property, regardless of the interval before apprehension, consummates the theft. Building on this, the 1929 case of People v. Sobrevilla, the Supreme Court reiterated that successful taking determines the crime of theft, irrespective of subsequent recovery of the stolen item.

However, the Court of Appeals decisions in People v. Diño and People v. Flores presented a different perspective. These cases introduced the theory that theft is only consummated when the thief has the ability to freely dispose of the stolen items. For instance, in Diño, a driver who stole army rifles was convicted of frustrated theft because he was apprehended before passing a military checkpoint. The court reasoned that the theft was not fully produced because the items were not under the looter’s final control and disposal. This approach contrasts with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings, creating a divergence in the understanding of theft’s consummation.

In 1984, the Supreme Court seemingly supported the concept of frustrated theft in Empelis v. IAC. The Court ruled that the accused were guilty of frustrated qualified theft because they were unable to carry coconuts away from a plantation due to the owner’s arrival. However, this ruling was problematic because it conflated the definitions of frustrated and attempted crimes, stating that the crime was only frustrated because the actors were not able to perform all the acts of execution. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states that the crime is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution, though not producing the felony as a result.

The Supreme Court in Valenzuela emphasized the importance of legislative intent in defining crimes. The Court stated:

“It is Congress, not the courts, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment. The courts cannot arrogate the power to introduce a new element of a crime which was unintended by the legislature, or redefine a crime in a manner that does not hew to the statutory language.”

With this in mind, the element of “free disposal” introduced by Diño and Flores finds no basis in Article 308. The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate said rulings. The definition of theft focuses on the taking of personal property with intent to gain, not on the subsequent ability to freely dispose of the property.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the notion of frustrated theft. The Court stated that,

“[U]nlawful 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.”

Once the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is deemed complete. Therefore, the Court concluded that there is no crime of frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code, and that theft can only be attempted or consummated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the crime of theft could be committed in its frustrated stage under the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court had to determine if the inability of the thief to freely dispose of stolen items meant the crime was only frustrated.
What is the definition of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code?	Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. The elements are: (1) taking of personal property, (2) property belongs to another, (3) taking with intent to gain, (4) taking without the owner’s consent, and (5) taking without violence or intimidation.
What did the Court of Appeals rule in People v. Diño and People v. Flores?	The Court of Appeals held that theft is only consummated when the thief has the ability to freely dispose of the stolen items. If the thief is apprehended before they can freely dispose of the items, the crime is only frustrated.
How did the Supreme Court differentiate between consummated, frustrated, and attempted theft?	The Supreme Court clarified that theft is consummated upon the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to gain. It can only be attempted if the taking is not completed, meaning not all acts of execution have been performed. There is no frustrated theft.
What does “unlawful taking” or apoderamiento mean?	“Unlawful taking” or apoderamiento is the deprivation of one’s personal property. This is complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
What was the Court’s basis for rejecting the concept of frustrated theft?	The Court emphasized that the ability to freely dispose of stolen property is not an element of theft under Article 308. It stated that legislative intent, as expressed in the statutory language, should guide judicial interpretation.
What was the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Empelis v. IAC?	The Supreme Court in Valenzuela reassessed its decision in Empelis, noting that Empelis erroneously conflated the definitions of frustrated and attempted crimes. Thus, the Court did not consider Empelis as an insurmountable given that frustrated theft is viable in this jurisdiction.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for theft cases?	The ruling simplifies the prosecution of theft cases by focusing on the act of taking rather than the offender’s subsequent ability to dispose of the stolen items. It removes a potential defense strategy based on the inability to freely dispose of the property.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Valenzuela v. People definitively clarifies that theft cannot be committed in its frustrated stage, aligning judicial interpretation with the legislative intent of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. By focusing on the act of unlawful taking, the ruling provides a clearer framework for prosecuting and defending theft cases in the Philippines. It will take considerable amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be recognized.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA Y NATIVIDAD vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 160188, June 21, 2007