No crime of frustrated theft

CASE DIGEST: ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.

TINGA, J.: This case aims for prime space in the firmament of our criminal law jurisprudence.

FACTS: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to dispose of the goods.

HELD: The Revised Penal Code (RPC) provisions on Theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the "free disposition of the items stolen" is in any way determinative of whether the crime of Theft has been produced. The Supreme Court thus concluded that, under the RPC, there is no crime of frustrated Theft. (G. R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007)

Popular Posts