11. Valenzuela v. People, GR No.

160188, June 21, 2007

Facts:

While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking
area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Valenzuela, hauling a
push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded these
cases where his co-accused, 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 stolen articles.

Issue:

Whether the crime committed is frustrated theft

Ruling:

No. The accused is guilty of consummated theft since he has

obtained possession over the stolen item and the presumed
inability of the offender to freely dispose of the stolen property
does not negate the fact that the owners have already been
deprived of their right to possession upon the completion of the
taking. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing. The ability of the offender
to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive
element of the crime of theft.

12 People vs. Salvilla, GR No. 86163, April 26, 1990

Facts:

The accused Bienvenido Salvilla together with his co-accused

armed with homemade guns and hand grenade staged a robbery
at New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They entered the establishment and
told Rodita (employee) that it was a hold-up. Salvilla threatens the
owner and his daughters with a gun, asking for money. They held
the victims as hostage when the police and military authorities
had surrounded the lumber yard. The police and military
authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still
wouldn‘t budge after more ultimatums. This resulted in injuries to
the girls as well as to 2 of the accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the crime of robbery is consummated

Ruling:

Yes. It has been held that the crime is consummated when the
robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a short
time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken into the
hands of the robber, or that he should have actually carried the
property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful
possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it. From
the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if
the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the
unlawful taking is complete.

13 People vs Lamahang, GR No. L-43530, August 3, 1935

Facts:

Lamahang was caught making an opening with an iron bar on the

wall of a store of cheap goods. The accused had only succeeded
in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall,
when a policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and
placed him under custody. The lower court found him guilty of
attempted robbery.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime is attempted robbery

Ruling:

The crime committed was not attempted robbery but only

attempted trespass to dwelling, since based on the facts
established, his intention was to enter by means of force into the
said store against the will of its owner. In case of robbery, in order
that the simple act of entering by means of force or violence
another person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to
commit this offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly
intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some
personal property belonging to another. In the instant case, there
is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the accused
may reasonably be inferred.
14 People vs. Sy Pio, GR No. L-5848, April 30, 1954

Facts:

The accused entered a store and once inside, he fired his .45
caliber pistol at the Chinaman Sy who was hit fatally. Kiap who
was in the store asked him why he fired the shot and without
answering him, the accused fired at Kiap, hitting him on the right
shoulder. Upon being hit, Kiap immediately ran behind the store
to hide and he heard the accused fire at several other directions
before he ran away. The wound of Kiap healed in 20 days and was
inflicted on the part of his body which could not have produced
his death. For shooting Kiap, the accused was prosecuted for and
declared guilty of frustrated murder in the Court of First Instance.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated murder

Ruling:

The accused is guilty of attempted murder, because he did not

perform all the acts of execution, actual and subjective, in order
that the purpose and intention that he had to kill his victim might
be carried out. The fact that Kiap was able to escape, which the
accused must have seen, must have produced in the mind of the
accused the belief that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital
part of the body. In other words, the accused knew that he had
not actually performed all the acts of execution necessary to kill
his victim.

15 People vs. Ravelo, GR No. 78781, October 15, 1991

Facts:

Accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force one

Reynaldo Gaurano. They then detained Reynaldo at the house of
Pedro Ravelo, one of the accused. Accused-appellants assaulted,
attacked, and burned Reynaldo Gaurano and latter die as
consequence thereof. The accused-appellants also kidnapped Joey
Lugatiman and was brought to Ravelo's house where he was
tortured. Lugatiman was able to escape.

Lugatiman reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the

police authorities. RTC convicted the accused-appellants of
murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of Lugatiman.

In his appeal, his counsel contends that there can be no frustrated

murder absent any proof of intent to kill, which is an essential
element of the crime of frustrated murder. The trial court merely
relied on the statement of the accused-appellants stating they
would kill Lugatiman to establish intent to kill.

Issue:

Whether the statement by the accused stating that “Lugatiman”

would be killed is sufficient proof of intent to convict a person of
frustrated murder.

Ruling:

No. In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the

offender must have the intent or the actual design to kill which
must be manifested by external acts. A verbal expression is not
sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the act. Intent
must be shown not only by a statement of the aggressor, but also
by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to
deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to
defend himself. Accused-appellants, therefore, are not guilty of
frustrated murder but only of the crime of slight physical injuries.

16 Epifanio vs. People, G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2007

Facts:

Crisaldo and his cousin, Allan were walking to their respective

homes after spending time at the house of Crisaldo's father. Since
the pavement going to Crisaldo's house followed a narrow
pathway along the local shrubs called banganga, Allan walked
ahead of Crisaldo. Suddenly, Crisaldo felt the piercing thrust of a
bladed weapon on his back. His attacker was their uncle, Lazaro.
Lazaro stabbed Crisaldo again but only hit the latter’s left arm.
When Allan heard Crisaldo’s cry of pain, he rushed to help and
upon seeing their uncle, he asked him why he did such a thing,
Lazaro ran away. Lazaro was then charged with Frustrated Murder.

Issue:

Whether the accused is guilty of frustrated murder.

Ruling:

No. It must be stressed that it is not the gravity of the wounds

alone which determines whether a felony is attempted or
frustrated, but whether the assailant had passed the subjective
phase in the commission of the offense. In this case, intent to kill
is very evident because of the manner of execution and of the
number of wounds that was inflicted. However, Lazaro failed to
perform all the acts of execution because Allan came and he was
forced to run away. Lazaro did not voluntarily desist from stabbing
Crisaldo, he had to stop because Allan recognized him. Hence, the
subjective phase has not been completed. Moreover, no evidence
was presented to prove that Crisaldo would’ve died from the
wounds were it not for the timely medical attendance. Without
such proof, the character of the wound is doubtful.

17 People vs Felipe Kalalo, et.al., G.R. Nos. 39303-39305,

March 17, 1934

Facts:

On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio

Holgado, one of the deceased, ordered the plowing of the
disputed land and employed several laborers for that purpose.
Kalalo, upon learning about it, went to the place accompanied by
some people. They were all armed with bolos and upon arriving at
the place, they ordered the workers to stop. Having been
informed of the cause of the suspension of the work, Panaligan,
one of the deceased, ordered the laborers to continue the work.
At this point, Kalalo approached Arcadio and the other appellants
approached Panaligan and they all simultaneously struck with
their bolos. Arcadio and Panaligan died instantly from the wounds
received. After the two had fallen, Kalalo took the revolver that
Panaligan carried, and fired four shots at Hilario Holgado who was
then fleeing from the scene in order to save his own life.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty of murder or of

simple homicide in each of the cases

Ruling:

Under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines

murder, the circumstance of “abuse of superior strength”, if
proven to have been presented, raises homicide to the category
of murder; but it is also to be borne in mind that the deceased
were also armed, one of them with a bolo, and the other with a
revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their
strength was almost balanced because there is no doubt but that,
under circumstances similar to those of the present case, a
revolver is as effective as, if not more than three bolos. For this
reason, this court is of the opinion that the acts established in
cases Nos. 6858 and 6859 (G.R. Nos. L-39303 and 39304,
respectively), merely constitute two homicides.
As to the third case, the evidence shows that Kalalo fired four
successive shots at Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing
from the scene of the crime in order to save his own life. It shows
that he was bent on killing said Hilarion Holgado. He performed
everything necessary on his part to commit the crime that he
determined to commit but he failed by reason of causes
independent of his will, either because of his poor aim or because
his intended victim succeeded in dodging the shots. The acts thus
committed by the said appellant Kalalo constitute attempted
homicide.

18 US vs Dominguez, GR No. L-17021, February 23, 1921

Facts:

Defendant was a salesman of the Philippine Education Company.

After he had received P7.50 for the sale of books, which he should
have given to the cashier, he put it in his pocket with intent to
misappropriate the amount and convert it to his own personal use
to the damage and prejudice of the said Philippine Education Co.

Issue:
Whether the act of the accused constitutes a consummated
offense or merely a frustrated offense of estafa

Ruling:

The crime committed is frustrated estafa. The accused performed

all the acts of execution. However, the crime was not
consummated as there was no damage caused in view of the
timely discovery of the felonious act. In this kind of estafa the
elements of (1) abuse of confidence, and (2) damage to the
offended party must concur.

19 Pozar vs Court of Appeals, GR No. L-62439, October 23,

1984

Facts:

The accused, being then an applicant for probation after he was

convicted of an offense give to the complainant, Mr. Danilo
Ocampo, the City Probation Officer, the sum of P100.00 in a paper
bill under circumstances that would make the said City Probation
Officer, liable for bribery. Mr. Ocampo upon the suggestion of the
presiding judge of City Court of Angeles who learned about the
P100 given to the Probation Officer in an envelope by the
applicant, filed an Information t against the accused. RTC found
Mr. Pozar guilty of Corruption of a Public Official.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of Corruption of a Public

Official

Ruling:

No. The SC fairly deduce that the procedure for processing

petitioner's application for probation in the Probation Office at
Angeles City was not precise, explicit and clear cut and since the
accused petitioner is a foreigner and quite unfamiliar with
probation rules and procedures, there is reason to conclude that
petitioner was befuddled, if not confused so that his act of
providing and advancing the expenses for whatever
documentation was needed further to complete and thus hasten
his probation application, was understandably innocent and not
criminal. Thus, the accused petitioner is entitled to acquittal of
the crime charged.

20 US vs Valdes, G.R. No. L-14128 December 10, 1918

Facts:

The accused set fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with
kerosene oil and placed beside an upright of the house and a
partition of the entresol of the building, thus endangering the
burning of the latter. The Court of First Instance charged Valdes
with the crime of arson.

Issue:

Whether the crime committed is qualified as consummated arson

Ruling:

The crime is classified only as frustrated arson, inasmuch as the

defendant performed all the acts conceive to the burning of said
house, but nevertheless., owing to causes independent of his will,
the criminal act which he intended was not produced. The offense
committed cannot be classified as consummated arson by the
burning of said inhabited house, for the reason that no part of the
building had yet commenced to burn, although, as the piece of
sack and the rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near
partition of the entresol, the partition might have started to burn,
had the fire not been put out on time.