c. Mistake of FactWhile ignorance of the law exempts no one from compliance, ignorance of a fact relieves the accused of criminal responsibility

Definition: Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. It therefore destroys the presumption of criminal intent that arises upon the commission of a felonious act.

The requisites of Mistake of Fact:(1.)That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the

accused believed them to be.(2.)That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.(3.)That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the

accused.

US v Ah ChongFacts: Ah Chong was a cook in Fort McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, Who’s there? But received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, if you enter the room I will kill you. But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, and believing that he was being attacked he seized the kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.

Held & Ratio: Ah Chong was acquitted because of mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires, to justify the act, that there be: (a.) unlaw aggression on the part of the person killed; (b.) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c.) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. If the intruder were really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Art 11, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making the defense.

People v OanisFacts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpower, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to this identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.

Held and Ratio: Both Oanis and Galanta were found guilty of murder. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping.

In apprehending the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers who are trying to capture him that killing would be justified.

In the Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the accused, because, having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.

In the instant case, the accused found no circumstances, which would press them to immediate action. The person in the room being asleep, the accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed. The, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for the accused to follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him. Hence, the accused were at fault when they shot the victim in violation of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the identity of the victim.

The mistake of fact of the accused was, therefore, brought about by their negligence.

d. Transferred Intent – Art IV, Par 1Art IV, Par 1: Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences, which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not; therefore, a person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.

The felony committed by the offender should be one committed by means of dolo, that is, with malice, because Par 1 Art IV speaks of wrongful act done difference from that which he intended.

Requisites:a. Intentional felony has been committedb. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, and

logical consequence of the felony committed by the offendera. Natural – an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or

eventsb. Logical – there exits a rational connection between the act of

the accused and the resulting injury or damage

c. Similar nature in the intended consequence; in other words, the nature of the injury is similar from that which was intended (it will not apply, therefore, in cases or felonies which requires a specific intent)

Rationale: El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado: he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.

Transferred Intent: The intent to commit a felony will transfer to the unintended felony as a result of the intended one.

i. Aberratio ictus (There is a mistake in the blow)- Blow is meant for a person but transferred to another person. Intent to hurt A is unintentionally transferred to B.

- The blow landed elsewhere unintended

People v GuillenFacts: Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he performed the act voluntarily; that his purpose was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the President, in view of the fact that those persons, being although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the President, he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President

Held & Ratio: The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo, and Emilio Maglalang.

In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance with Art IV of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply incident of another act performed without malice. In the words of Viada, in order that an act may be qualified as imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene; where such intention exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced. And, as was held by this court, deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such an unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.

ii. Error in personae (There is a mistake in the identity of the victim)

- One intended to kill, injure, or harm to person A but, rather, the harm was done to person B. Pursuant to Par 1 Art IV, since the offender is already committing the felony he is still criminally liable for harm done to a wrong person.

People v SabalonesFacts:

Facts: (from testimony of Edwin Santos, a survivor)- Together with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior Villoria, they drove to the residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. - Edwin Santos, Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and Alfredo Nardo (driver) also went riding in an owner-type jeep, in order to bring back the group [as] soon as the car of Mr. Lim was parked in his home. The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When they arrived at the gate of the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire. Edwin Santos looked at the direction where the gunfire came, and saw [the] persons [who] fired at the jeep. He identified accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape Sabalones and Timoteo Berongaas the persons who fired at the vehicle.

Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin Santos and Rogelio Presores testifiedabout the shooting and identified the faces of the accused. Presores was riding in the car that is behind the jeep. He positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen. When the gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson Tiempo immediately maneuvered and arrived at Major Juan Tiempo’s house from which they have escaped death.

Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence during the commission of the crime. Sabalones presented numerous witnesses who stated that he was sound asleep when the incident took place [since he got tired watching over his brother’s wake]. While Beronga testified that he attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and was fetched by hiswife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30 pm to sleep. Sabalones even escaped from place to place to flee from the wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the father of the two victims. The defense even pointed out errors from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing that the place where the incident happened is dim and not lighted

Held: The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy. These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that the appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims’ vehicles, which they mistook to be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire. Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their culpability – mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.

iii. Praeter intentionem (The injurious result is greater than that intended)- No intention to commit so grave a harm. - Harm is a natural and logical consequence of the wrongful act done

People v AlbuquerqueFacts: Defendant Alburqueque is a father of nine children living with one of his daughters Maria. He suffers from stroke. One of his daughters, Pilar, developed an intimate relationship with the deceased, Manuel Osma, which eventually culminated in Pilar’s giving birth to a child. Upon getting knowledge of the child, appellant sought to force Manuel in recognizing and supporting the child and/or marrying her daughter. In one such occasion, appellant visited and spoke to Manuel in his office to once again convince the latter of his proposition. The deceased answered in the negative, which led appellant to whip out his penknife. Deceased, in an effort to disarm appellant, seized him by the neck. At this point the appellant moved to stab the deceased on the face but due to his lack of control of the movement of his arm, the weapon landed in the base of the neck killing Manuel.

Held and Ratio: The Court found the appellant only wanting to inflict a wound that would leave a permanent scar on the face of the deceased, or one that would compel him to remain in the hospital for a week or two but never intended to kill him because doing so would frustrate his goal of compelling him to marry, or, at least, support his daughter. The fatal wound inflicted, therefore, was solely due to lack of appellant’s control of his right arm on account of his paralysis. The appellant is still guilty of homicide because albeit it was not his intention to kill Manuel, he nevertheless intended to inflict harm upon him. The mitigating circumstances of lack of intent, voluntary surrender, and under influence of passion and obfuscation were all taken into account.

Note: People v Pugay is another example of Praeter intentionem.

3. ConcurrenceFor a felony to occur, actus reus and mens rea must come together.

- If one is present and the other is not, then no criminal liability - SUBJECTIVE ELEMENT OF LIABILITY- Specific intent is required:

E.G. Mutilation – if you shoot a person with a gun and his arm falls off, that’s not mutilation because mutilation requires specific intent.E.G. Theft/Robbery – Both require actus reus of taking the property - Both requires mental element of intent to gain- The diff: robbery requires force of entry or entry not the usual wayE.G. A girl who took friend’s iPad from the house; qualify as theft only because she did not break in even if she entered the home through a window.

IMPORTANT: IT IS ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THEREI IS ACTUS REUS, MENS REA, AND CONCURRENCE.

4. Resulting HarmA resulting harm from the felony must occur; sometimes the resulting harm is important to prove the specific felony committed

E.G. Homicide – requires result such that there must be a dead person E.G. Rape – the result of a child is not needed, the act of penetrating is

enough

5. Causation- Direct link between the act and the result- In other words, the actus reus (act) is connected with the result in order through incur criminal liability through causation

Ex: death must be caused by the physical and mental elements

- Actual/Factual Cause of the Result: if not for this event, result would not have happened. It is, therefore, a question of fact. - Proximate/Legal Cause of the Result: That cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. - Trigger that sets in motion natural, logical, continuous chain of events.

- It is governed by a question of fairness- E.G. A stabs B; B falls to the ground; B hits his head and dies.The proximate cause is A stabbing B; the actual cause of death is B hitting his head

- Liability is only up until the point of apparent safety or up until the chain of events brought about by the trigger or the proximate cause; any issue or result that arises after that can no longer be attributed the proximate cause.

- The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:- There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury- The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

- Supervening Event: A distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, which produces the result or the injury- Circumstance that interrupts the natural, logical, continuous chain of events (this takes away liability from the proximate cause, he is only responsible for all that occurred BEFORE the supervening event).- An interruption in the chain of the events triggered by the proximate cause. However, it is important to note that the liability caused by the proximate cause is not extinguished provided that harm was already caused (e.g. if a bus turtled due to negligence of the driver and the passengers already incurred injury due to the turning over of the car. When the passengers were brought to the hospital a homicidal nurse killed one of the passengers. In this case, the driver is only liable only up until the point of injury of the passengers; but on the death of the specific passenger caused by the homicidal nurse the driver is no longer liable).- There’s no hard and fast rule in deciding when the event is enough to constitute supervening event. Some rules:1. Point of apparent safety: once unbroken event comes to a point where risk of the act had already stopped

- Hypothetical: bus rolling down a ravine stops at boulder and does not continue

rolling. One year later, typhoon lets bus continue rolling down, and it hits a house

killing 4 family members. In this case, driver no longer liable.- Hypothetical (A): a man jumps off the jeep because of hold-up. He is hit

by a truck.Robber liable.

- Hypothetical (B): a man jumps off the jeep because of hold-up, gets up, walks to the other street and he is hit by a truck. Robber is no longer liable; he is liable only for the injuries for falling off.

2. Law does not bother with trifling events.- CASE A: and B both shoots the victim (head & chest wound). Death was due to excessive bleeding. Who is liable for death? BOTH.- CASE B: A shoots on the head. B scratches the arm of the victim. The death was due to excessive bleeding. Who is liable for death? A only.- The law does not care for trifles/insignificant events. If insignificant, disregard. CASE A: The law will disregard minor differences in wounds. CASE B: Law will disregard the minor wound.

3. Natural Condition of victim cannot serve as supervening causes.- Ordinarily, wound is not fatal. But because of the physical condition of the person, it’s fatal ON him particularly. Offender is still liable.- Allergic reactions: offender still liable. It does not matter that it is natural to offended party.

4. Act of offender will not be overridden by omission of bystanders to help the victim.

5. Active intervention (especially if criminal act) removes liability of offender.- Active intervention of drunk doctor. Criminal is liable for injuries, but not for death. § Stabbing by a nurse.- Note: Minor negligence of others will NOT free original offender of

liability. UNLESSthere is GROSS negligence.

- The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:- There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused- The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

6. Circumstances- Some felonies require specific circumstances.

Ex. Condition of the victim. RAPE: child under 12 yo is element of statutory rape. It is not part of actus reus.

Bataclan v Medina

Facts: Medina is the owner and operator of a bus. This bus, on Sept. 13, 1952 around 2:00AM somewhere in Imus, Cavite, crashed and fell into a ditch. Apparently, its front tire burst, zig-zagged and turned turtle into the ditch. Bataclan was one of the 18 passengers. Most of the passengers were able to get out, but Bataclan and 3 others were trapped. It appears that the bus drivers and the passengers who already got out did not try to help Bataclan et al get out, instead, about 10 of the locals in the area came to their aid, they were carrying a burning torch for illumination, but then a fierce fire started and engulfed the bus and killed Bataclan et al. It appears that there was a gas leak from the bus and it caught fire from the torch the would-be rescuers were using.

The heirs of Bataclan sued Medina.

The trial court found that there was a breach of a contract of carriage where Medina undertook to take Bataclan to his destination safely. The trial court also found that there was negligence on the part of Medina since at the time of the blow-out, the bus was speeding. There is no question that under the circumstances, the defendant carrier is liable. The only question is to what degree. The trial court argued that Medina is only liable for the injuries suffered by Bataclan and not by his death, the proximate cause of which was the fire, which was not caused by Medina.

Issue: WoN it was the negligence of Medina, owner of the bus company, which was the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan.

Held and Ratio: Yes. In this case, the proximate cause of the death was the overturning of the bus, because of the overturning, it leaked gas which is not unnatural or unexpected. The locals coming to the aid of the trapped passengers was most likely because the driver and the conductor went out looking for help. It is only natural that the would-be rescuers bring with them a torch because it was 2:30AM and the place was unlit. The fire could also be attributed to the bus driver and conductor because he should have known, from the circumstances, and because he should have been able to smell gasoline and therefore he should have warned the rescuers not to bring the torch. Said negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier come under the codal provisions above-reproduced, particularly, Articles 1733, 1759 and 1763.

Proximate Cause – “‘that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.’ And more comprehensively, ‘the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.’”

C. Liability for Incomplete Elements

1. Uncompleted Crimes

a. Attempted and frustrated felonies, in general – Art VI and Art VII

Art VI: Consummated, Frustrated, And Attempted Felonies – Consummated felonies, as well as those frustrated and attempted, are punishable.1. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present

2. 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.3. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than its own spontaneous desistance.

Stages of a Crime:

1. Internal Acts – ideas in the mind of the person are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, would constitute an offense.

- Intention and effect must concur 2. External Acts – (a) preparatory acts, and (b) acts of execution

- Preparatory acts – generally not punishable; except when they are independent crimes (i.e. Crimes of possession)- Acts of execution– punishable under RPC

Subjective and Objective PhaseNote the phases are part of an entire time line

- Subjective phase – from commencement of the crime until the last act of execution.- Objective phase – results or when actor loses control over what will happen next happen.**No matter how long you point the gun at the person, you are not liable. Until you depress the knife, you won’t be liable for attempted/frustrated murder/homicide.

Consummated – All the elements necessary for the execution and accomplishment of a felony is present: Actus reus, Mens rea, Concurrence, Resulting Harm, and Causation- As every crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of law- When not all elements are proved, the liability can be:

- Felony is either frustrated or attempted- Felony could not have been committed- Another felony is shown to have been committed

- How to determine whether the crime is only attempted or frustrated, or it is consummated:

- Nature of the offense- Arson need not necessarily mean that property is totally destroyed by fire, can be consummated even if a portion or only a part is burned. It does not depend on the extent of the damage caused.

- Elements constituting the felony- Different elements constituting a particular elements

- Theft: unlawful taking of another’s property, only that he is able to take or get hold of.

- Manner of committing the felony- Formal crimes – consummated in one instant, no attempt

(i.e. S lander, false testimony, sale of marijuana)

- Crime consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act – flight to enemy’s country, corruption of minors, treason- Felony by omission – no attempted stage; i.e. Killing a child by starvation- Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them are consummated by mere agreement – corruption of public officer, bribery- Material crimes – three stages of execution; i.e. Rape, homicide

- There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime because all the acts were already performed; the crime is not produced because it is by nature impossible to do so.

Uncompleted Felony – Simply means that the result (or desired result by offender) is absent

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- Requirements:

- Offender performs all the acts of execution – nothing more is left to be done by the offender because he has performed the last act- All the acts performed that could have produced the felony as a consequence (i.e. Inflicting a mortal wound on a kill target)- But the felony is not produced–the intended result was not

performed- By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator

- Prevented by third person- Has reached the objective phase- Not the own will of the offender (i.e. when the doctor poisoned his wife, only to pump out the poison because he felt guilty)

Attempted – An attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance- Actus Reus is not complete- Requirements:

- There be external acts- These acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be

committed- Not only preparatory but overt acts: physical activity or deed indicating the intention to commit a particular crime- Intention must be ascertained from the facts and not on the admission of the offender - Does not exceed the subjective phase of the crime: starts from where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their natural course.

Note that voluntary desistance may absolve the actor of criminal liability or be liable for a lesser felony.

United States v 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 mother‘s 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 killedWoN 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, 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 and not attempted murder because defendant performed all the acts, which should have resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily, desisted from further acts.

b. Examples of specific felonies

i. Illegal Tresspass – Art. 280 - 281

People v LamahangLamahang was caught while making an opening from a wall in an attempt to enter the store. He was convicted not of attempted robbery but only of attempted trespassing because there were no overt acts leading to robbery. His intent on what he plans to do when he enters the store is unclear.

Lamahang had already started actus reus for illegal trespass; however, No actus reus/mens rea for robbery can be summarily adduced from the evidence, therefore, Lamahang was charged with illegal trespassing and not robbery (despite him being a repeat offender of the latter felony)

ii. Physical injuries (Art. 263 – 266), Homicide (Art. 249), Murder (Art. 248)

People v Borinaga

Facts: The victim Harry Mooney, an American who resided in Calubian, Leyte, contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. Lawaan attempted to collect the whole amount of the contract even though the corrals are not yet finished. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him that something would happen to him. On that evening, Mooney was in the store of his neighbor, sitting with his back towards a window when suddenly Basilio Borinaga struck him with a knife. The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the scene but after ten minutes, he returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by Mooney and his neighbor frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.

Issue: WoN the crime is frustrated murder.

Held: YES. As an essential condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution, attending the attack. There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.

Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:“The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not could they have produced it because the blow did not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of Mooney.” What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not his death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony,according to the law, and not the preventing of the performances of all theacts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case. Attempted murder only.

People v KaloloFacts: The genesis of the controversy started when Kalalo filed two complaints against Isabel Holgado in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, alleging that he, Kalalo cultivated the land in question during 1931 and 1932 but that, when harvest time came she, Isabela Holgado, reaped all that had been planted thereon. Both complaints were dismissed. 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. Marcelo Kalalo, upon learning about it, went to the place accompanied by his brothers and Felipa and Juan, his brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia. 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, Marcelino Panaligan, one of the deceased, ordered the laborers to continue the work. At this point, Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio and the other appellants approached Marcelino Panaligan and they all simultaneously struck with their bolos. Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly from the

wounds received. After the two had fallen, Marcelo Kalalo took the revolver that Marcelino Panaligan carried, and fired four shots at Hilario Holgado who was then fleeing from the scene in order to save his own life.

Issue: WoN the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in each of the cases.

Held: It is true that 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 merely constitute two homicides. As to the third case, the evidence shows that Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing from the scene of the crime in order to be out of reach of the appellants and their companions and save his own life. The fact that the said appellant, not having contended himself with firing only once, fired said successive shots at Hilarion Holgado, added to the circumstance that immediately before doing so he and his co-appellants had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the former, shows that he was then 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, none of which found its mark. The acts thus committed by the said appellant Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted homicide.

Rivera v PeopleFacts: 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 hollow block and hit Rubens’s 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.

Issue: 1. WoN there was intent to kill.2. WoN the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder

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 victim3. Conduct of the malefactor before, during and after the commission of the crime,4. Circumstances under which the crime was committed5. Motive of the accused.

1. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.

2. Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.

iii. Theft – Art. 308

US v AdiaoFacts: Defendant is 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, and to pay the costs- The defendant claimed in his appeal that the lower court erred in holding that he was guilty of the crime of theft as disclosed by the facts appearing of record

Issue: WoN the act of the defendant is frustrated theft

Held & Ratio: 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

Valenzuela v People

Facts: - On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the Shoe Mart (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 pushcart with cases of detergent of the well-known "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, and then boarded the vehicle. All these acts were eyed 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. - The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00.

- In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 90,convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2) years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum.

- 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 articles stolen. - Decision dated 19 June 2003,the Court of Appeals rejected this contention and affirmed petitioner’s conviction thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue: WoN the theft was consummated

Held & Ratio: YES. Petition is DENIED- Article 6 defines those three stages, namely the consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.

- A felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.”

- 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.”- It is attempted “when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.”

- Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a:- Subjective phase - 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

- If the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted

- Objective phase - After that point of subjective phase has been breached

- Subjective phase is completely passed in case of frustrated crimes- 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 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.- “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” - ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime or there can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting- In crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as “a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent” and “essential for criminal liability.”- Statutory definition of our mala in se crimes must be able to supply what the mens rea of the crime is and overt acts that constitute the crime- Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (Elements of Theft):

1. That there be taking of personal property - only one operative act of execution by the actor involved in theft2. Property belongs to another3. Taking be done with intent to gain - descriptive circumstances4. Taking be done without the consent of the owner - descriptive

circumstances5. Taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things - descriptive circumstances

- Abandoned cases:- Diño: Military Police inspected the truck at the check point and found 3 boxes of army rifles - frustrated theft- Flores: guards discovered that the “empty” sea van had actually contained other merchandise as well - consummated theft- Empelis v. IAC: Fled the scene, dropping the coconuts they had seized - frustrated qualified theft because petitioners were not able to perform all the acts of execution, which should have produced the felony as a consequence

- Cannot attribute weight because definition is attempted- The ability of the actor “to freely dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary.

- We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the petitioner was completed in this case. With intent to gain, he acquired physical possession of the stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time that he was able to drop these off at a spot in the parking lot, and long enough to load these onto a taxicab.

- Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted (no unlawful taking) or consummated (there is unlawful taking).

Note: In theft, there is no result that would need waiting. The moment that the property is taken and control of it is transferred to the thief then the felony of theft is already consummated.

iv. Robbery – Art. 293 & Art. 294

People v Dio

Facts: Crispulo Alega was with his girlfriend. They went to Pasay City Public Market. They were walking up the stairs when Remedios saw Tobias twisting the neck of her boyfriend, while Dio was holding his 2 hands. Tobias tried to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wristwatch, but he resisted. Tobias then stabbed him on the left side of his chest. He ran and fell down in front of Pasay Commercial Bank, still in possession of his watch.

Autopsy revealed that he died because of the wound at the region below his left breast, which penetrated his heart. Appellant confessed and confirmed his part in the commission of the crime

Issue: WoN he should be convicted of special complex crime of robbery with homicide or attempted robbery with homicide.

Held & Ratio: Attempted Robbery with Homicide as they (appellant and co-accused) were unsuccessful of divesting the victim of his wristwatch; the killing of victim considered merely incidental. Therefore the act falls under Art. 297 – attempted robbery with homicide.

v. Rape – Art. 266-A

People v OritaFacts: - March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S. Abayan, 19-year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College, arrived at her boarding house after her classmates brought her home from a party. She knocked at the door of her boarding house when a frequent visitor of another boarder held her and poked a knife to her neck. Despite pleading for her release, he ordered her to go upstairs with him. Since the door, which led to the 1st floor was locked from the inside, they used the back door to the second floor. With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, he dragged her up the stairs. When they reached the second floor, he commanded herwith the knife poked at her neck, to look for a room. They entered Abayan's room. He then pushed her hitting her head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife, he undressed himself. He then ordered her to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt, bra, pants and panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and

then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Still poked with a knife, she did as told but since she kept moving, only a portion of his penis entered her. He then laid down on his back and commanded her to mount him. Still only a small part of his penis was inserted into her vagina. When he had both his hands flat on the floor. She dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. When he pursued her and climbed the partition, she ran to another room then another then she jumped out through a window.- Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, 18 meters in front of the boarding house and knocked on the door. When there was no answer, she ran around the building and knocked on the back door. When the policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they found her naked sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it around her. Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the boarding house where they heard and saw somebody running away but failed to apprehend him due to darkness. She was taken to Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital where she was physically examined. ISSUE: WoN the crime is frustrated rape.

Held & Ratio: NO. RTC MODIFIED. Appelant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape - Correlating Art. 335 and Art. 6, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated stages apply to the crime of rape. - Requisites of a frustrated felony are:

(1) That the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony (2) That the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the

perpetrator's will- Attempted crime the 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, which acts it is his intention to perform. If he has performed all of the acts that should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.- In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ- The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's testimony if credible. Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim.

Perez v CA

Facts: - April 14, 1988 morning: After Julita was through with washing the dishes, she proceeded to the bedroom to store away their, beddings. Suddenly Adelmo appeared pulling her by the hand, embraced her from behind and held her breasts. He pulled her to the bamboo bed, positioned himself on top of her and placed her hands behind her as he kissed her lips and neck. She tried to avoid

his kisses by moving her head from side to side. As she was pinned, he managed to insert his right hand inside her t-shirt and bra and squeezed nipples. Then, he tried to raise her balloon-like skirt with his right hand, inserted it inside her panty and while making up and down motions. Adelm said: “Sige na, pagbigyan mo na ako.” She then cried out “Inay”. - Eufemia Tria peeped into their window which was just a few meters from where she was and there saw her daughter Julita lying flat on a bamboo bed with her skirt raised and Adelmo on top of Julita as her hands pinned down. She then rushed to the room and found Adelmo hiding under the bamboo bed. She thought of hacking him with a bolo but realized she couldn’t so she brought him to his parents’ house to tell them what happened.- Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion: extent of injuries sustained by her and that the slight physical injuries could have been caused by attempted rape- Adelmo claims that he invited Julita as they were already becoming intimate to the room where her mother could not see them. But, her mother called her and went into the room. Sensing this, he stood up and hid under the bed.

Issue: WoN there is attempted rape

Held & Ratio: NO. MODIFIED acts of lasciviousness- Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution that should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. - In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed.- There is no showing in this case that petitioner’s sexual organ had even touched complainant’s vagina nor any part of her body.- Acts constitute acts of lasciviousness. The elements of said crime are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force and intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex