PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG [61 Phil.
703 (1935)]
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
executed. Acts susceptible of double interpretation
cant furnish ground for themselves. Mind should not
directly infer intent. Spain SC: necessary that
objectives established or acts themselves obviously
disclose criminal objective.
People vs Trinidad, 196 SCRA 51 (1989)
Facts: Trinidad accused of 2 counts of murder & 1
count frustrated murder. Accused in member of INP in
Nasipit. Crime occurred in Butuan between El Rio &
Agfa while they were in a fierra bounf for Davao.
Trinidad shot & killed Soriano & Laron while he shot
and injured Tan
Issue: WON conviction is proper?
Held: Affirmed. Murder and attempted murder.
Trinidad alibi is weak and overridden by Tan and
Commendadors positive identification. Though some
discrepancies in testimonies are found, these are
trivial. Distance between Trinidad & 2 deceased
immaterial. Important is that he shot them. Tan has no
seen ill motive to falsifiably testify against Trinidad. It
is attempted and not frustrated murder because he
failed to execute all acts due to moving vehicle and
this shielded Tans body and his wound was not fatal
thus not sufficient to cause death (People v. Pilones)
People vs Campuhan
G.R. No.129433, March 30, 2000
Facts: 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.
Mere touching 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
6. 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.
Rivera vs People
Victim, Ruben went to a nearby store to buy food.
Accused Rivera was in the same vicinity. When he
saw Ruben, Rivera mocked Ruben for being jobless
and dependent on his wife. This caused an exchange
of heated words between the two.
The next day when Ruben and his daughter were
once again buying food, Rivera and two other men
attacked Ruben. The two men punched and mauled
Ruben while Rivera, on the other hand, got a
hollowblock and hit Rubenss head with it three times.
Rivera and his companions left only when the
policemen arrived.
Ruben was brought to the hospital and it was said that
he suffered only slight and superficial wounds but
were it not for the arrival of the policemen, Ruben
would have died.
TC- the three are guilty of frustrated murder.
CA- affirmed the decision of the trial court, with
modifications.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was INTENT TO KILL.
HELD: Yes. There is intent to kill in the case at bar.
The pieces of evidence required to prove intent to kill
are as follows:
1.means used by the malefactors
2.nature,location and number of wounds sustained by
the victim
3. conduct of the malefactor before, during and after
the commission of the crime,
4.circumstances under which the crime was
committed
5. motive of the accused.
Applying the elements to the case at bar, the means
or weapons used by RIVERA is a piece of hollow
block.
As to nature, location and number of wounds, Rivera
inflicted injuries on the head of Ruben three times.
Conduct before during and after the commission of
the crime, Rivera was angry at Ruben because of the
circumstances that transpired between Ruben and
him
BALEROS, JR. VS. PEOPLE 483 SCRA 10
Parties Involved Renato Chito Baleros, Jr. as
petitioner People as respondent
Facts: Early morning of Dec. 13, 1991, Malou was
awakened by a smell of chemical on a piece of cloth
pressed on her face. She struggled to break free but
his attacker was pinning her down, holding her tightly.
When her right hand finally got free, she grabbed and
squeezed the sex organ of his attacker. The man let
her go, enabling Marilou to seek help from her maid
and classmates living nearby. An investigation was
conducted in which the evidences pointed to Chito as
the attacker. The RTC thus found Chito guilty for
attempted rape and ordered him to suffer an
indeterminate sentence (from prision correccional as
minimum to prision mayor as maximum) and to pay
Malou PHP 50,000. Chito made an appeal to the CA
only to be denied. He moved for a reconsideration but
to no avail. He thus made an appeal to the SC
arguing that:
1. There was not enough evidence to find him guilty of
the crime
2.Prosecution failed to satisfy all requisites for
conviction
3.Circumstances relied on to convict him were
unreliable, inconclusive and
contradictory.
4.There was no motive.
5.The awarding of damages to complainant was
improper and unjustified.
6.In failing to appreciate in his favour the
constitutional presumption of
innocence and that moral certainty has not been met,
he should be acquitted
on the basis that the offense charged has not been
proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Issues
1.Whether the evidence adduced by prosecution has
established beyond
reasonable doubt the guilt of the petitioner for the
crime of attempted rape
2.Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of
the RTC finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of attempted rape
Held
1.No. The courts decision was merely based on
speculations.
2.Yes. SC reversed and modifies the decision of the
CA, acquitting Chito of attempted rape. He is
adjudged guilty of light coercion and is ordered to
serve 30 days of arresto mayor and pay PHP 200.
Doctrine/Ratio
Art. 335 of the RPC, rape is committed by a man who
has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
1.By using force or intimidation
2.When woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious
3.When woman is under 12 years of age or demented
Art. 6 of the RPC defines attempted rape when
offender commences the commission of rape directly
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the crime of rape by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. The attempt which RPC
punishes is the act that has logical connection to the
crime that should it have been successful, the attempt
would lead to the consummation of rape. However,
there was no carnal knowledge in the case. The
pressing of a chemical-soaked cloth while on top of
Malou did not necessarily constitute an overt act of
rape. Moreover, the petitioner did not commence any
act that was indicative of an intent to rape Malou. The
petitioner was fully clothed; there was no attempt to
neither undress her nor touch her private part.
In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential
requisite. Therefore for an attempted rape, accused
must have commenced the act of penetrating but for
some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the penetration was not
completed. Thus petitioners act of lying on top of her,
embracing and kissing her or touching her private part
do not constitute rape or attempted rape.
People vs Erinia
Facts: Julian Eria charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo.
old child. Doubt on whether actual penetration
occurred. Physical exam showed slight inflammation
of exterior parts of organ indicating effort to enter
vagina. Mom found childs organ covered with sticky
substance
Issue: WON crime is consummated?
Held: No. Frustrated only
1. Possible for mans organ to enter labia of a 3
years and 8 months old child (Kennedy v. State)
2. No conclusive evidence of penetration so give
accused benefit of the doubt. Frustrated.