11.

EPIFANIO VS PEOPLE

FACTS:
At around 9 in the evening, Crisaldo and his cousin, Allan was walking to their
respective houses. Since the pavement was narrow, Allan walked ahead of Crisaldo.
Suddenly, Crisaldo cried in pain because he was stabbed. Allan turned
around and saw petitioner as the attacker of Crisaldo.
Petitioner stabbed again
Crisaldo but only to his left arm.
When Allan, rushed to the side of Crisaldo, petitioner ran away. Crisaldo was
brought to the hospital where he stayed for three weeks.
Petitioner was then charged of Frustrated Murder.
The RTC then rendered petitioner guilty of frustrated murder.
The CA then, affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
WON the petitioner is only liable for attempted murder considering that there
is no evidence that Crisaldo obtained life threatening wounds.

RULING:
Yes, the petitioner is only liable for attempted murder. It must be
stressed that it is not the gravity of the wound which distinguishes
frustrated from attempted felony rather whether or not the assailant had
passed the subjective phase in the commission of a crime.
The subjective phase in the commission of a crime is that portion of
the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which,
with prior acts should result in the consummated crime. In case of an
attempted crime, the offender never passes the subjective phase while in
frustrated felony; the offender has passed the subjective phase in the

commission of a crime as he already performed all the acts of the

execution which would produce the felony.
In this case, petitioner failed to perform all the acts of the execution
because Allan came to the aid of Crisaldo forcing petitioner to run away.
The subjective phase in this case was never passed or completed. Thus,
petitioner should be liable only for attempted murder.