US v EDUAVE 1917

The accused, PROTASIO EDUAVE, rushed upon a girl

suddenly and struck her partly from behind with a
sharp bolo.
produced a frightful gash on the lumbar (lower
back) region and slightly to the side
8.5 long and 2 deep, severing all the
muscled and tissues of that part.
ACCUSEDS MOTIVE: was incensed that the girl had
charged him before the local officials with RAPE and
being the cause of her pregnancy.
EDUAVE was the girls mothers querido and was living
with her at the time the crime was committed.
Court does not deny that the accused is guilty of a
crime but questions which crime should he be
convicted.
If she died, it would be HOMICIDE and not
MURDER
If it is FRUSTRATED or ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE
ISSUE:
1 w/n the crime is HOMICIDE rather than MURDER
if the victim had died
2 w/n the crime is ATTEMPTED and not
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
HELD:
1 The crime committed would have been MURDER IF
THE GIRL HAD BEEN KILLED.
QUALIFIED by ALEVOSIA (treachery) because of
the sudden attack from behind to the back and
side with a bolo
2 The crime was FRUSTRATED and not ATTEMPTED
MURDER.
RPC3 defines a FRUSTRATED FELONY:
A felony is FRUSTRATED when the OFFENDER
PERFORMS ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION which should
PRODUCE THE FELONY AS A CONSEQUENCE, but which,
nevertheless, DO NOT PRODUCE IT BY REASON OF
CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE
PERPETRATOR
There is an ATTEMPTED FELONY WHEN:
1 When the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by OVERT
ACTS
2 And does not perform all the acts of
execution which constitute the felony by
reason of SOME CAUSE OR ACCIDENT OTHEN
THAN HIS OWN VOLUNTARY DESISTANCE
THE CRIME CANNOT BE ATTEMPTED MURDER as
defendant performed ALL of the ACTS which should
have resulted in the consummated crime and
VOLUNTARY DESISTED FROM FURTHER ACTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY:
the offender, after beginning the commission of the
crime by OVERT ACTS, IS PREVENTED, AGAINST HIS

WILL, by some outside cause from performing all of

the acts which should produce the crime
Purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a
FOREIGN FORCE or AGENCY which intervenes and
compels him to stop prior to the MOMENT when he
has performed all of the acts which should produce
the crime as a consequence
If all of the acts which should result in
consummation of the crime has been performed
and the offender voluntarily desists, it CANNOT be
an ATTEMPT
ESSESSENTIAL ELEMENT TO DISTINGUISH ATTEMPTED
FROM FRUSTRATED
FRUSTRATED
no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or
agency between the beginning of the commission of
the crime and the moment when all of the acts have
been performed which should result in the
consummated crime
SUBJECTIVE PHASE has been PASSED; subjectively
COMPLETE as nothing interrupted the offender while
passing through subjective phase; the crime is not
consummated because of intervention of causes
independent from offenders will
ATTEMPTED
there is intervention and the offender does not arrive
at the point of performing all of the acts which should
produce the crime
he is stopped short of that point by some cause not
from his voluntary desistance
offender never passes SUBJECTIVE PHASE as he is
interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention
of outside causes before the subjective phase is passed
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
That portion of the acts constituting a crime included
between the act which BEGINS the commission of the
crime and the last act performed by the offender
which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime
That period occupied by the acts of the offender over
which he has control
Period bet. where he begins and the point of voluntary
desistance
ATTEMPT if between these two points (BEG ACT and
point of desistance) offender is STOPPED by any cause
outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective
phase has not been passed
FRUSRATED if between these two points (BEG ACT and
FINAL) offender is NOT STOPPED and continues until he
performs the last act
Everything after this is the OBJECTIVE PHASE
Accused is guilty of FRUSTRATED MURDER because
there was INTENT TO KILL.
A deadly weapon was used
The blow was directed at a vital part of the body
The aggressor stated his purpose to kill, thought he
had killed, and threw the body into the bushes
There was ALEVOSIA (treachery) to qualify if the victim
had died.

RULING: judgement AFFIRMED. GUILTY of FRUSTRATED

MURDER. PENALTY 13y cadena temporal. No
aggravating nor mitigating circumstance

PEOPLE v ENRIQUEZ 10/23/97

Accused: ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ and WILFREDO ROSALES
EVIDENCE BY PROSEC:
6/5/1990 at 11AM, NORTH HARBOR
- SGT. PEDRO CERILLO, JR., OIC of INTELLIGENCE and
DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT of POLICE STN 2 of
Western PD (Tondo), was in the vicinity of NORTH
HARBOR routinely scouting for info from informants
- Near the gate fronting PIER 10 DANNY, porter and
member of ADAM (Anti-Drug Abuse Movement),
informed CERILLO that BULAG, a freelancer porter at

North Harbor was looking for prospective buyers of

marijuana
CERILLO instructed DANNY to say that
there was a couple who would be
interested for a BUY-BUST
THE BUY BUST:
PATROLWOMAN SHIRLEY MARAMOT, 37 y/o, who
was manning Police STN 2 was broached for the
BUY-BUST
FELLOW OFFICERS were at US Embassy cause of a
rally in progress
CERILLO got on his own owner-type jeep and got 10
100 peso bills from his house to be used in the ops;
he also photocopied the bills to show serial
numbers which had also written in his personal
notebook
CERILLO handed the money to MARAMOT and
assembled a team made up of ADAM members bec
other police were at the rally (Joseph Mendoza,
Amado Betita, Alex Trinidad, DANNY)
PLAN: MARAMOT and MENDOZA will pose as couple
buying marijuana and the others were back-up
men. MARAMOT was to NOD HER HEAD as soon as
sale was consummated
11:35AM the group proceeded to vicinity of Pier 10
in 2 vehicles
At cor of Moriones St. and Radial Rd, MARAMOT
and MENDOZA sat on a bench by a store to
wait for DANNY who had fetched BULAG
CERILLO and the others were on stand-by at a
billard hall (10m away from MARAMOTs group
and gave a good view of ops) mingling with
spectators and pretending to be bystanders
DANNY later arrived with accused, WILFREDO
ROSALES (BULAG)
BULAG talked with the poseur-buyers and after
about 5 mins they all entered an alley, walking
along shanties, until they reached a house
#1349
A half-naked man (ERNESTO ENRIQUEZ
NENE) emerged from one of the doors of the
house and asked MARAMOT in a visayan
accent: Dala mob a ang pera?
MARAMOT took the marked money from her
pocket and showed it to ENRIQUEZ;
MARAMOTs group were allowed to enter the
house; CERILLO followed minutes later
CERILLO found the door closed and went
around the house; he saw MARAMOT and
MENDOZA exit through the back door with
ROSALES carrying a plastic bag; he followed
them further until they reached a waiting shed
for jeepney passengers
MARAMOT announced herself as police;
CERILLO held ROSALES and took his bag; upon
opening it he found another sack with
marijuana wrapped in plastic
Upon returning to house #1349 ENRIQUEZ was
gone
POST-BUY BUST:
The group moved to Kagitingan st at the
Lakandula detachment where CERILLO
interviewed ROSALES; he was told that

ENRIQUEZ usually visits Pier 10 so they

continued to scout there
A security guard supervisor accompanying the
group spotted ENRIQUEZ walking near the pier;
he was picked up by CERILLO and brought to
the Lakandula detachment
MINDA, wife of ENRIQUEZ, arrived later bec
someone had fetched her to bring the
money; she was told to return the amt to
CERILLO; three of the bills she took from her
wallet were the part of the marked ones;
MINDA became hysterical and embraced and
begged CERILLO to forgive her husband;
CERILLO informed her to see the STN
COMMANDER
CERILLO apprised accused-appellants of their
consti rights; advised ENRIQUEZ in front of his wife,
that he should get a lawyer so his statement could
be taken
CERILLO prepared the request for exam of
evidence taken from the accused and the affidavit
of the arrest
6/5/1990 MINDA and other relatives tried to settle
the case with CERILLO
DURING TRIAL another relative who was a senior
supervising agent of NAPOLCOM approached and
requested CERILLO to help out
MARAMOT corroborated CERILLOs facts
NBI FORENSIC CHEMIST GEORGE DE LARA Certificated
that specimen was positive for 6kg(pre-exam) and
5.999kg(post-exam)
ACCUSED charged by CITY PROSEC of violation of S4,
Art 2, RA 6425
ROSALES DEFENSE
He had come from Bohol to MNL in April of 1990
and stayed with his cousin, ENRIQUEZ, while
working as an extra porter of WILLIAM LINES
DAY OF BUY-BUST:
On his way home from work when a male person
whom he recognized only by face sought his
assistance to carry a white colored sack that
smelled of dried fish to where jeepney commuters
were waiting for a ride; he was promised P20 for
this
At a junction, security guard, HOMER CIESTA,
blocked and pushed him inside a vehicle where he
was handcuffed, while the owner of the sack
disappeared
He was brought to a house near the slum area
(Parola) where 20K was asked for his released by
CERILLO; when he did not heed, he was brought to
Lakandula detachment and then to STN 2 of WPD
ENRIQUEZ DEFENSE
Resident of 1349-C Alinian St, Tondo; in the
business of buy and sell of oil at the North Harbor
under the business name, Nie-Men R. Enriquez
Enterprises with a permit to operate oil sludge
collection services; he is under contract with
LORENZO SHIPPING CORP from Jan 1983-Apr 1984;
VP of KAPISANAN ng MARALITAN NANINIRAHAN ng

TONDO, INC. (civic org and recipient of cert of

merit from National Steel Corp)
DAY OF BUY-BUST:
He left his house at 11:45AM for Pier 10 of North
Harbor, a 30min walk from his house, to meet his
BRO, VICTOR; he had 20 P100 bills in his wallet
He was seen by Robinson Lumbis and Betty
Quimbo, both his neighbors
He took his lunch at home and went to the pier; he
was not able to spend the night in his house
6/61990, 2PM:
ENRIQUEZ went to the maintenance section of
Lorenzo Shipping Lines to pay the oil he got
HOMER CIESTA invited him to earn some extra
money so they left for the squatters area in
Parola
In Parola, ENRIQUEZ was instructed to approach a
certain person (CERILLO) who instantly cuffed him;
CERILLO demanded 20K for his freedom; he
refused and was brought to Lakandula detachment
where his 2K was taken from his wallet and
presented as evidence as the money used in the
buy-bust
He was taken to the police stn and CIESTA went to
his wife, MINDA to ask if she had the money; her
money was taken as well
RTC found both GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
of crimes charged against them; SENTENCE = LIFE +
fine of 30K (they gave credence to evidence by prosec)
ENRIQUEZ FILES A SEPARATE APPEAL WITH THE SC
insists innocence
1 RTC erred in giving too much credence to
CERILLO and MARAMOT bec they were framing
him up for selfish motives
2 Incredible for either police to leave and
abandon STN #2 bec STN Commander and
others were at the US Embassy rally
3 MARAMOT could not have arrested me because
she was not even armed
4 CERILLO used his personal funds as marked
money
5 There was a 6 day delay for filing of info
because there was extortion
HELD:
On RTC giving credence to prosec evidence:
RTC evaluation on the credibility of witnesses is
viewed with respect because they can closely
observe demeanor and deportment of witnesses
and the manner in which they testify
The Court finds no justification for holding
differently from the RTC findings
On allegation of frame-up:
Defense of frame-up in buy-bust operations is
raised often
Evidence to back this claim must be clear and
convincing so it can overcome presumption of
validity of acts by govt officials
APPELANT failed to substantiate his claims

On 6 day delay:
APPELANT attribution of delay to his extortion has
also been a standard defense in drug cases
APPELANT has failed to offer evidence for this
If this claim was true, he should have charged the
police
HOWEVER, Court finds no undue delay because the
info was filed on the day the forensic chemist
released his certificate that marijuana was present
On CERILLO and MARAMOT abandoning the police
station:
CERILLO explained that he mostly spends his time
on field duty and that he chose MARAMOT to be
part of the operation bec she was not well known in
the location of the buy-bust
Despite MARAMOTs desk job, she could be
assigned elsewhere
Buy-bust was conducted not far from the station
(approx.. distance bet. MNL City Hall and Luneta)
On MARAMOT not being able to arrest APPELLANT
immediately:
MARAMOT testified that because of her size and
lack of firearm, she had to wait for her companions
before apprehending appellant as MENDOZA (her
supposed husband) did not have a gun
On use of CERILLOs personal money:
This is expected bec STN 2 in MNL was not well
funded
Only 3 of the 10 P100 bills returned to CERILLO bec
thieves took the rest when he momentarily parked
his jeep outside the STN in 7/11/1990 together with
6 live .38 bullets and his Parker ballpen
Non-presentation of buy-bust money does not
affect case vs appellant
On Appellants alibi
Alibi is a weak defense but it is a good plea
For alibi to be effective: proof that it would be
physically impossible for the accused to be at the
scene of the crime at the time of the commission of
the crime
Alibi is overcome by POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION
ROSALES APPEAL
1 To sustain a conviction of sale of marijuana, the sale
must be clearly established, which the prosecution has
failed to do
Though intent need not be established in acts mala
prohibita, knowledge that the sack contained a
prohibited drug must be established
based on S2(f) of RA 6425 that requires a person
who delivers a prohibited drug must KNOWINGLY
pass the contraband to another
2 Act of carrying the sack is a mere ATTEMPT to
DELIVER the prohibited drug
HELD:
On establishment of knowingly passing contraband:
S4, Art 2, RA 6425 penalizes not only the sale but
also the delivery of prohibited drugs

Selling is only one of the acts covered in the

provision while DELIVER is defined as a persons
act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
another personally or otherwise and by any
manner with or without consideration.
DELIVERY is a punishable act by itself
While SALE may involve money or any other
material consideration, DELIVERY may be with or
WITHOUT consideration
Though ROSALES gives the impression of being
unaware of the prohibited drug involved in the
case, however, the contrary has been proved (he
knew deal involved ONLY MARIJUANA)
On ATTEMPTED delivery:
ROSALES contends that his act of carrying the sack
is a mere attempt bec the sack still being within his
control, he could have easily refused to deliver the
item to the buyer
Contends he is still in SUBJECTIVE PHASE
If found guilty, only ATTEMPTED delivery
RPC6 provides for Consummated, frustrated, and
attempted felonies
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than this own spontaneous desistance.

SUBJECTIVE PHASE That portion of the acts

constituting a crime included between the act which
BEGINS the commission of the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which, with the prior acts,
should result in the consummated crime
If it does not pass the subjective phase, act is only
ATTEMPTED, but if it does pass but does not produce
the felony, it is FRUSTRATED
UNFORTUNATELY, crime against Appellant is under
SPECIAL LAWS.
Incomplete sale claimed by appellant is
inconsequential
DOCTRINE: RPC6 does NOT APPLY to special laws
FINAL NOTE: sale and delivery of marijuana punishable
in S4, Art 2, RA 6425. The appellants evidently
confederated towards common purpose of selling and
delivering. CONSPIRACY MAY BE INFERRED (ROSALES
brought buyers to ENRIQUEZ while the latter instructed
the former to carry the sack of marijuana to the
residence of the buyers)
RA 7659 amending Dangerous Drugs Law provides if
qty of drugs is more than amt specified by law,

RECLUSION PERPETUA to DEATH. There was more than

750g of marijuana.

RULING: RTC finding both GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE

DOUBT of violation of S4, Art 2, RA 6425 and penalty
imposed of 30K AFFIRMED + costs