Valenzuela v.

People

Facts: While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them
where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and
later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the
boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the
receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended
at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated
theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s
decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held: No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be
present – (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 intimidating of persons or force
upon things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one
with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property
stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has
already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be
attempted or consummated.

People v. Bayon

Facts:

On March 31, 2003, appellant Reynaldo Bayon was charged with theft in an Information, On March 31,
2003, appellant Reynaldo Bayon was charged with theft in an Information. The evidence of the
prosecution established that on February 10, 2002, private complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, after
suffering a stroke, hired appellant as his masseur and stay-in helper in his house located at No. 45
Belmonte Street, San JoseCompound, New Manila, Quezon City. At about 7:30 a.m. of March 29, 2003,
private complainant Eduardo Cunanan, who was a tenant in one of the rooms of Atty. Limoso's house,
reported to Atty. Limoso the loss of his two wristwatches: a Seiko Diver's watch worth P2,000.00 and a
Rado Diastar watch worth P12,000.00. Atty. Limoso assured Cunanan that he would investigate the
matter. Thereafter, Atty. Limoso asked his household helpers, including appellant, regarding the missing
wristwatches. When confronted by Atty. Limoso, appellant denied any involvement in the loss of
Cunanan's wristwatches. Atty. Limoso became suspicious that appellant was the one responsible for the
theft after he made an inquiry from the security guards of the compound. Atty. Limoso confronted him
and told him to give back the things but he denied and afterthat he cannot be found on the house.

Issue: Whether or not the accussed appellant committed qualified theft.

Ruling: Under Article 310[21] of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes qualified if committed by a
domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail
matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

In this case, appellant was convicted of the crime of qualified theft based on these pieces of
circumstantial evidence:

(1) As a stay-in helper of Atty. Arturo Limoso, the [accused-appellant] had access to the latter's room
where his vault containing the missing items was kept and where the key to the vault was placed;

(2) Upon discovery by Atty. Limoso of the loss of the missing items, the police could no longer find in
Atty. Limoso's house the clothes of the [accused-appellant.]

PEOPLE V. RIMORIN

G.R. No. 124309. May 16, 2000

FACTS:

Two persons were kidnapped and brought to a forest area where they were killed. The bodies were set
on fire while in a pit then buried in the same spot. A helper of the suspects Rimorin and the families of
the victims were threatened with retaliation if they reported the incident. Ten years later, the helper,
after learning that one of the suspects have died, reported the incident and the bodies were then
exhumed. Rimorin and his companions were convicted of kidnapping with murder.

ISSUE:
Whether the guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt in the charge of kidnapping with murder

RULING:

Yes. The offenses were committed on April 16, 1981, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7659 on
December 31, 1993. In this instance, it is evident that the purpose of appellant and his companions
when they kidnapped the victims was to kill them. Hence, there were two counts of the complex crime
of kidnapping with murder.

PEOPLE V. LACANIETA

G.R. No. 124299. April 12, 2000

FACTS:

On March 20, 1987 about 7 oclock in the evening, the Wilma Tayo and her mother Mrs. Consorcia Tayo
were in their house. They were about to eat supper when someone called to them asking to light a
cigarette. Wilma opened the door slightly and there stood Jerry Ballenas. Ballenas did not light his
cigarette but instead blew the gas lamp and put out the light. He held Wilma Tayo by the wrist. Ballenas
forced Wilma to go out with him and struck the hand of Consorcia and pointed the handgun at her.
Ballenas held Wilma tightly and took her away.

According to a witness, Florencio, he was passing through the street when he saw Lacanieta lying on top
of Wilma. The hands of Wilma were then held down by Ballenas and Salvador. Surprised by the presence
of Florencio, Lacanieta stood up and told the former that they were just having a “happy-happy”.
Florencio then left and after reaching three razes, he hid to see what the group was up to. Florencio
testified that he thereafter saw four men take turns in ravishing and stabbing Wilma.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Lacanieta is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of forcible abduction with rape
RULING:

Yes. In this case, Consorcia, the mother of Wilma, positively identified Ballenas as the person who went
to her house and abducted her daughter at gunpoint that fateful night. Moreover, the testimony of
Florencio fortifies the theory of the prosecution that after the abduction of Wilma, Ballenas together
with Lacanieta, Salvador and Gamad raped and stabbed Wilma.

The use by Ballenas of a firearm in committing the crime, a fact duly alleged in the information and
proven in court, should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty. However, since the crime
took place prior to the implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruled that the penalty that
can be imposed on Ballenas is reclusion perpetua.