Intod vs. CA Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute.

They fired at her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one. Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder? Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crime -- an act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1)legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where: (1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) There is no intention to perform the physical act; (3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime. Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense, which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

US vs. Eduave Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all of the muscles and tissues there. The accused was incensed at the girl for the reason that she had theretofore charged him criminally before the local officials with having raped her and with being the cause of her pregnancy. He was her mothers querido and was living with her as such at the time the crime here charged was committed. Issues: WON the crime murder or homicide if the girl had been killed, WON the stage of commission is attempted or frustrated Held: The crime committed was MURDER; The attack was made treacherously. Qualified by the circumstance of alevosia (Sp. treachery, a-le-vo-SI-a), the accused making a sudden attack upon his victim partly from the rear and dealing her a terrible blow in the back and side with his bolo. The stage of commission is FRUSTRATED; Not attempted murder because defendant

PERFORMED ALL OF THE ACTS which should have resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further acts

People vs. Listerio FACTS: The accused was convicted of murder and frustrated murder committed with conspiracy. He assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to convict him of her crime charged. HELD: It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused. The trial court found the witness testimony as candid and straightforward. Court defer to the lower courts findings consistent with the principle that the trial judge is the best and the most competent person who can weigh and evaluate the testimony of witnesses. Conspiracy was also proven. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the existence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be established.

People vs. Orita Facts: Victim: Cristina Abaya, 19 years old, freshman at St. Josephs College in Borongan, Eastern Samar At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, Abayan came home to her boarding house. As she knocked at the door, Orita suddenly held her and poked a knife at her neck. She pleaded for him to let her go but instead of doing so, Orita dragged her upstairs with him while he had his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand holding andpoking the balisong at the victim. At the second floor, he commanded Christina to look for a room. Upon finding a room, Orita held her against the wall while he undressed himself. He then ordered her to undress. As she took off her shirt, he pulled off her bra, pants and panty, and ordered her to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, pointing the balisong at her neck, ordered he to hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In this position, only a portion of his penis entered her, so he ordered Abayan to go on top of him. With him lying on his back and Abayan mounting him, still, he did not achieve full penetration and only part of his penis was inserted in the vagina. At this instance, Abayangot the opportunity to escape Orita because he had both his hands and the knife on the floor. Abayan, still naked, was chased from room to room with Orita climbing over the partitions. Abayan, frantic and scared, jumped out of a window and darted for the municipal building and was finally found by Pat. Donceras an dother policemen. Due to darkness though, the failed to apprehend Orita. In the medico legal, Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude had the following findings: circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck, linear abrasions below left breas, multiple pinpoint marks at the back, abrasions on both kness, erythemetous areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enterand with difficulty; vaginal cavity tight, no discharges noted

Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential. For the consummation of rape, any penetration ofthe female organ by the male organ is sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge.In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purposeand from that moment, the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.

People vs. CampuhanFacts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan. Campuhan was caught by childs mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their house. Campuhan, helper of Corazons brother was allegedly kneeling in front of the child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ayoko, ayoko while Primo forced his penis into childs vagina Issue: WON crime is rape? Held: No. Modified to attempted rape 1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Meretouching of external genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in ordinary sense(People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated (People v. Escober) 2. Attempted no penetration or didnt reach labia/mere grazing of surface 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mothers testimony questionable with regards to her position relative to Primo and child. They failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position 4. Mans instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust even if .. seeing Corazon 5. Child denied penetration occurred People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted: pains felt, discoloration of inner lips of vagina or red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case, Medico legal officer, though penetration not needed to prove contact, no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact. Hymen intact

US vs. Adiao Facts: Defendant: Tomas Adiao Adiao, a customs inspector, took a leather belt valued at P0.80 from the baggage of T. Murakami Adiao kept the belt in his desk at the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees He was charged with the crime of theft in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila He was found guilty of frustrated theft

He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila and the decision of the Municipal Court was affirmed and he was sentence to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, andt o pay the costs The defendant claimed in his appeal that the lower court erred in holding that he was guilty of the crime oft heft as disclosed by the facts appearing of record

Issue: WON the act of the defendant is frustrated theft Held: No, the crime cannot properly be classified as frustrated. The defendant has performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the crime of theft. He has taken possession of the belt and this already constitutes the crime of theft. The act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime (Decision of Supreme Court of Spain) Note: The ponente referred to the decision of Supreme Court of Spain in its decision. It illustrated several situations that constitute consummated theft

Aristotel Valenzuela vs People of the Philippines FACTS: Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the wellknown "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these acts were seen by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. Petitioner and Calderon were charged and, after trial, convicted of consummated theft. Petitioner appealed, arguing that he should have been convicted of frustrated theft only. However, his conviction was affirmed. ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of consummated theft? HELD: Yes. An easy distinction lies between consummated and frustrated felonies on one hand, and attempted felonies on the other. So long as the offender fails to complete all the acts of execution despite commencing the commission of a felony, the crime is undoubtedly in the attempted stage. Since the specific acts of execution that define each crime under the Revised Penal Code are generally enumerated in the code itself, the task of ascertaining whether a crime is attempted only would need to compare the acts actually performed by the accused as against the acts that constitute the felony under the Revised Penal Code.

In contrast, the determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated necessitates an initial concession that all of the acts of execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts of execution. The determination of whether the felony was "produced" after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory definition of the felony. It is the statutory definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under the Revised Penal Code, while the elements in turn unravel the particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying criminal intent. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code gives a general definition of theft as follows: 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. For the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage, the question is again, when is the crime of theft produced? There would be all but certain unanimity in the position that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain. Viewed from that perspective, it is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution. It might be argued, that the ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen delves into the concept of "taking" itself, in that there could be no true taking until the actor obtains such degree of control over the stolen item. But even if this were correct, the effect would be to downgrade the crime to its attempted, and not frustrated stage, for it would mean that not all the acts of execution have not been completed, the "taking not having been accomplished." Insofar as we consider the present question, "unlawful taking" is most material in this respect. Unlawful 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. With these considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.

People vs. Lamahang Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and was unfastening another when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery? Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a particular and concrete offense which would lead directly to consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural relation of cause and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that his intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of acts.

People vs Salvilla

Facts: - Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla - April 12, 1986, at about noon time Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares), staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard - They were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade - On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and informed her that it was a hold-up. - They went inside the office and the petitioner pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Maryand Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. - Severino asked Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the defense) and handed it to the petitioner. - Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita were kept inside the office. - According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to produce P100,000 so he and the other hostages can bereleased. Severino told him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday - The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The accused refused to surrender and release the hostages. - Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster, and someraincoats. Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key,Mayor Caram unlocked the door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the accused. - Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. - The police and military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldnt budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Marys right leg had to be amputated due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. He also claimed that they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender. Issues: WON the crime of robbery was consummated WON there was a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender Ratio: - Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful taking is complete. o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of the crime of robbery. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money, watches and wallet) were recovered from them. However, based on theevidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within the dominion and control of theappellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed. o It is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he should have actually carriedthe property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escapewith it. - No. The surrender of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their favour to mitigate their liability. o To be mitigating, a surrender must have the following requisites: that the offender had not been actuallyarrested, that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the surrender wasvoluntary. The surrender

by the appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these requirements. There is novoluntary surrender to speak of. Note: The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention) was also discussed.The detention in the case at bar was not only incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same so thenature of the offense was affirmed. Held: Judgment appealed is AFFIRMED

PEOPLE v. BORINAGA Facts: Harry H. Mooney, an American resident of Calubian, Leyte, entered into a contract with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish cage. Basilio Borinaga is associated with Lawaan in the said project. Mar. 4, 1929 (day) -- Lawaan, with some of his men, went to Mooney's shop and tried to collect from him the whole amount fixed for the entire project, regardless of the fact that only about 2/3 of the fish corral had been finished. Mooney refused topay, and Lawaan warned him that if he did not pay, "something would happen tohim." Borinaga had earlier been heard to tell a companion that he will stab Mooney. Mar. 4, 1929 (evening) -- Mooney was in the company of his neighbor, Perpetua Najarro. He was seated on a chair with his back towards the window of Najarro's store. Najarro saw Borinaga approaching the store window, and Borinaga struck at Mooney with a knife, but his knife landed on the back of Mooney's chair. Mooney fell, but was not injured. Borinaga returned to the store with his knife in his hand, but was unable to strike atMooney since the latter and Najarro shone a flashlight in his direction; Borinaga ran away. Later, Borinaga was overheard stating that he had missed his chance to stab Mooney and even apologized to his friends regarding the matter. Borinaga was charged in the CFI of Leyte for the crime of frustrated murder. Issue: W/N the facts constitute frustrated murder or attempted murder. Held: The crime committed was that of frustrated murder. The essential condition of a frustrated crime is that the author should perform allacts of the execution, and this was present in the attack. Nothing remained to bedone to accomplish the work of the assailant completely.