6/26/2015

G.R.No.L43530

TodayisFriday,June26,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L43530August3,1935
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS,plaintiffappellee,
vs.
AURELIOLAMAHANG,defendantappellant.
HonestoK.Bausaforappellant.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralHiladoforappellee.
RECTO,J.:
ThedefendantAurelioLamahangisbeforethiscourtonappealfromadecisionoftheCourtofFirstInstanceof
Iloilo,findinghimguiltyofattemptedrobberyandsentencinghimtosuffertwoyearsandfourmonthsofprision
correccional and to an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor for being an habitual
delinquent,withtheaccessorypenaltiesofthelaw,andtopaythecostsoftheproceeding.
AtearlydawnonMarch2,1935,policemanJoseTomambing,whowaspatrollinghisbeatonDelgadoandC.R.
FuentesstreetsoftheCityofIloilo,caughttheaccusedintheactofmakinganopeningwithanironbaronthe
wallofastoreofcheapgoodslocatedonthelastnamedstreet.Atthattimetheownerofthestore,TanYu,was
sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in
unfastening another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him
undercustody.
The fact above stated was considered and declared unanimously by the provincial fiscal of Iloilo, the trial judge
andtheSolicitorGeneral,asconstitutingattemptedrobbery,whichwethinkiserroneous.
ItisouropinionthattheattempttocommitanoffensewhichthePenalCodepunishesisthatwhichhasalogical
relationtoaparticular,concreteoffensethat,whichisthebeginningoftheexecutionoftheoffensebyovertacts
oftheperpetrator,leadingdirectlytoitsrealizationandconsummation.Theattempttocommitanindeterminate
offense,inasmuchasitsnatureinrelationtoitsobjectiveisambiguous,isnotajuridicalfactfromthestandpoint
ofthePenalCode.ThereisnodoubtthatinthecaseatbaritwastheintentionoftheaccusedtoenterTanYu's
storebymeansofviolence,passingthroughtheopeningwhichhehadstartedtomakeonthewall,inorderto
commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of policeman Tomambing, did not develop beyond the first
steps of its execution. But it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing penal sanction, that an act objectively
performedconstituteamerebeginningofexecutionitisnecessarytoestablishitsunavoidableconnection,like
the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect, with the deed which, upon its consummation, will
developintooneoftheoffensesdefinedandpunishedbytheCodeitisnecessarytoprovethatsaidbeginningof
execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.Thus,incaseofrobbery,inorderthatthesimpleactofenteringbymeansofforceorviolenceanother
person'sdwellingmaybeconsideredanattempttocommitthisoffense,itmustbeshownthattheoffenderclearly
intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the
instantcase,thereisnothingintherecordfromwhichsuchpurposeoftheaccusedmayreasonablybeinferred.
From the fact established and stated in the decision, that the accused on the day in question was making an
openingbymeansofanironbaronthewallofTanYu'sstore,itmayonlybeinferredasalogicalconclusionthat
hisevidentintentionwastoenterbymeansofforcesaidstoreagainstthewillofitsowner.Thathisfinalobjective,
once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any
otheroffense,thereisnothingintherecordtojustifyaconcretefinding.
1 a v v p h il. e t

Itmustbeborneinmind(IGroizard,p.99)thatinoffensesnotconsummated,asthematerialdamageis
wanting,thenatureoftheactionintended(accionfin)cannotexactlybeascertained,butthesamemustbe
inferredfromthenatureoftheactsexecuted(accionmedio).Hence,thenecessitythattheseactsbesuch
that by their very nature, by the facts to which they are related, by the circumstances of the persons
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/aug1935/gr_l43530_1935.html

1/2

6/26/2015

G.R.No.L43530

performingthesame,andbythethingsconnectedtherewith,theymustshowwithoutanydoubt,thatthey
are aimed at the consummation of a crime. Acts susceptible of double interpretation , that is, in favor as
wellasagainsttheculprit,andwhichshowaninnocentaswellasapunishableact,mustnotandcannot
furnishgroundsbythemselvesforattemptednorfrustratedcrimes.Therelationexistingbetweenthefacts
submitted for appreciation and the offense which said facts are supposed to produce must be direct the
intention must be ascertained from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable
instances of injustice, that the mind be able to directly infer from them the intention of the perpetrator to
causeaparticularinjury.Thismusthavebeentheintentionofthelegislatorinrequiringthatinorderforan
attempttoexist,theoffendermustcommencethecommissionofthefelonydirectlybyovertacts,thatisto
say, that the acts performed must be such that, without the intent to commit an offense, they would be
meaningless.
Viada(Vol.I,p.47)holdsthesameopinionwhenhesaysthat"theovertactsleadingtothecommissionofthe
offense,arenotpunishedexceptwhentheyareaimeddirectlytoitsexecution,andthereforetheymusthavean
immediateandnecessaryrelationtotheoffense."
Considering says the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of March 21, 1892 that in order to
declarethatsuchandsuchovertactsconstituteanattemptedoffenseitisnecessarythattheirobjectivebe
knownandestablished,orthatsaidactsbeofsuchnaturethattheythemselvesshouldobviouslydisclose
thecriminalobjectivenecessarilyintended,saidobjectiveandfinalitytoserveasgroundforthedesignation
oftheoffense:....
Inviewoftheforegoing,weareoftheopinion,andsoholdthatthefactunderconsiderationdoesnotconstitute
attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling (People vs. Tayag and Morales, 59 Phil., 606, and
decisionsoftheSupremeCourtofSpainthereincited).Underarticle280oftheRevisedPenalCode,thisoffense
iscommittedwhenaprivatepersonshallenterthedwellingofanotheragainstthelatter'swill.Theaccusedmay
be convicted and sentenced for an attempt to commit this offense in accordance with the evidence and the
following allegation contained in the information: "... the accused armed with an iron bar forced the wall of said
storebybreakingaboardandunfasteninganotherforthepurposeofenteringsaidstore...andthattheaccused
didnotsucceedinenteringthestoreduetothepresenceofthepolicemanonbeatJoseTomambing,whoupon
hearing the noise produced by the breaking of the wall, promptly approached the accused ... ." Under the
circumstancesofthiscasetheprohibitionoftheownerorinmateispresumed.(U.S.vs.Ostrea,2Phil.,93U.S.
vs.Silvano,31Phil.,509'U.S.vs.Ticson,25Phil.,67U.S.vs.Mesina,21Phil.,615U.S.vs.Villanueva,18Phil.,
215 U.S. vs. Panes, 25 Phil., 292.) Against the accused must be taken into consideration the aggravating
circumstancesofnighttimeandformerconvictions,inasmuchastherecordshowsthatseveralfinaljudgments
forrobberyandthefthavebeenrenderedagainsthimandinhisfavor,themitigatingcircumstanceoflackof
instruction. The breaking of the wall should not be taken into consideration as an aggravating circumstance
inasmuchasthisistheveryfactwhichinthiscaseconstitutestheoffenseofattemptedtrespasstodwelling.
The penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code for the consummated offense of trespass to dwelling, if
committedwithforce,isprisioncorreccionalinitsmediumandmaximumperiodsandafinenotexceedingP1,000
(art.280,par.2)thereforethepenaltycorrespondingtoattemptedtrespasstodwellingistodegreeslower(art.
51), or, arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. Because of the presence of two aggravating
circumstancesandonemitigatingcircumstancethepenaltymustbeimposedinitsmaximumperiod.Pursuantto
article29ofthesameCode,theaccusedisnotentitledtocreditforonehalfofhispreventiveimprisonment.
Wherefore,thesentenceappealedfromisrevokedandtheaccusedisherebyheldguiltyofattemptedtrespassto
dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
sentenced to three months and one day of arrestomayor, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the
costs.
Avancea,C.J.,AbadSantos,Hull,andVickers,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1935/aug1935/gr_l43530_1935.html

2/2