People v. Adiao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstracted a leather belt valued at P0.80 from the baggage of T. Murakami. He then secreted the belt in his desk in the Custom House, where it was discovered by other customs employees. Procedural History: The defendant was charged in the Municipal Court of Manila with theft and found guilty of frustrated theft. He appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which also found him guilty of frustrated theft and sentenced him to pay a fine of P100 with subsidiary imprisonment and costs. The Petition: The sole error assigned on appeal was that the lower court erred in holding the defendant guilty of theft based on the facts presented.
Issue(s)
Whether the crime committed is consummated theft or frustrated theft. Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was present.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, finding the crime to be consummated theft. The defendant-appellant was sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor, with costs of all instances against him. The merchandise was ordered returned to the lawful owner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the crime committed is consummated theft or frustrated theft: The Court held that the crime could not properly be classified as frustrated theft as defined in article 3 of the Penal Code. This is because the offender performed all the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft. The fact that the defendant was under observation during the entire transaction and was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom House is not decisive. All the elements of the completed crime of theft are present. The Court cited decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, including one where a defendant who picked a pocket during mass was considered to have committed consummated theft even though the money was recovered from him inside the church, because he had performed all the acts of execution. Another cited case involved robbery where the accused had taken possession of the money and placed it over the cover of a case, and was caught at that moment; the court considered it consummated robbery because the accused had materially taken possession of the money with the intent to appropriate it, executing all acts necessary to constitute the crime, with only the use of the thing being frustrated. On the issue of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position: The Court found that there existed the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken by the offender of his public position. In view of the provisions of articles 517 and 518, No. 5, of the Penal Code, and there being one aggravating circumstance compensated by no mitigating circumstances, the penalty must be imposed in the maximum degree.
Main Doctrine
The commission of all the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft, even if the offender is unable to achieve the intended use or disposition of the stolen property due to external factors, constitutes consummated theft, not frustrated theft. The offender's performance of all acts of execution is decisive.