of their brother Ricardo. Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Barcuma arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce. Arnold proceeded to the house of Susana Broce, Eugene‘s girlfriend, for a chat. As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit Eugene with it. The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballero brothers, to no avail. In the process, Eugene was stabbed three times. As Eugene was being assaulted, Myrna returned to the window of her house and saw the Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene.
Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Robito, Marciano, Jr. and Armando ganged up on Arnold. Two of them stabbed Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor.For his part, Leonilo rushed from his house to where the commotion was. He was, however, met by Robito who stabbed him on the chest. Wounded, Leonilo retreated and pleaded to his uncle Lucio Broce for help.
HELD:In case of an attempted crime, the offender never passes the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. The offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts of execution which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.
On the other hand, a crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime. The offender has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.
It cannot be denied that the appellants had the intention to kill Arnold. The appellants performed all the acts of execution but the crime was not consummated because of the timely medical intervention.
Treachery attended the stabbing of Arnold because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and sudden. He had no means and there was no time for him to defend himself. In sum, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder.
FRUSTRATED FELONIES PEOPLE v MISION, 194 SCRA 432 FACTS:On the evening of October 24, 1978, at Esperanza, Masbate, the accused, Luis Mision, with intent to kill, premeditated and with treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a bladed instrument Meroy Dagonoy, hitting the latter on the left shoulder and Luciana Dagonoy, also hitting her on the chest, thereby inflicting wound which cause the death of said Luciana Dagonoy. Several days after performing all the acts of execution which would have produce the crime of murder, as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to Meroy Dagonoy which prevented his death.
Crime committed:Murder (Luciana Dagonoy) and frustrated murder (Meroy Dagonoy)
Contention of the State:Two offense imputed to the appellant cannot be treated as a single offense because the manner in which he committed prevented him from constituting a complex crime under either of the way by which multiple offenses may be complex under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
The assault on Meroy Dagonoy constituted frustrated murder, here relatively quick recovery being the result of prompt medical attention which prevented the infection in the wound.
Contention of the Accused:The trial court erred in giving due weight and credit to the highly improbable testimonies of the witness and giving every ounce of benefit to the prosecution and in not resolving even a gram of doubt to the accused.
HELD:The decision of the trial court dated August 26, 1981 is modified by holding the accused, Luis Mision guilty of two separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder
D.LIABILITY FOR CRIMES WITH COMPLETE ELEMENTS
ARTICLE 6, RPC Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
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 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.
RELATE TO ARTICLES 134 AND 134 – A, RPC ARTICLE 134 Rebellion or insurrection – how it is committed?
The crime of rebellion and insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against teh Government for the purpose of removing allegiance to said government or its laws. The territory of the Republic of the Philippines or nay part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces or depriving the chief executive or legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
Article 134 – A Coup d „etat – how committed
The crime of coup d ‗etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication, networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out any where in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.
PEOPLE v ORITA, 184 SCRA 105