ARTICLE 6-PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG [61 Phil.

703 (1935)]- Stages of Execution

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 caughthim. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store as it was
early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery
Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of entering by means of force or
violence another person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this
offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the
purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the instant case,
there is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the accused may reasonably
be inferred. From the fact established and stated in the decision, that the accused on
the day in question was making an opening by means of an iron bar on the wall of Tan
Yu's store, it may only be inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident intention was
to enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. That his final
objective, once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury
to the inmates, or to commit any other offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a
concrete finding.
Issue: Whether or not the 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.

ARTICLE 8- CONSPIRACY PEOPLE v NACIONAL. G.R. Nos. 111294-95 September 7, 1995

FACTS: On February 21, 1985 at Brgy. Salvacion, Municipality of Daraga, Province of Albay.
WALTER NACIONAL alias "KA DENNIS," ABSALON MILLAMINA alias "KA ALVIN," EFREN
MUSA, RUDY LUCES, JAVIER MIRABETE alias "COMMANDER," and ZACARIAS MILITANTE
alias "CARE, " with intent to kill, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with evident
planning and taking advantage of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
intently shoot with a firearm QUIRINO LAGASON and JOEL LAGASON, inflicting upon them the
injuries resulting to their death.
The judgment convicting the five accused is based on the evidence presented by the
prosecution. It is derived mainly from the testimonies of two eyewitnesses Bienvenida
Lagason, Quirino's widow and Joel's mother, and Crisanto Miranda, a neighbor of the Lagasons
and accused Walter Nacional.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the four CCP-NPA namely Efren Musa, Rudy Luces, Javier Mirabete
and Zacarias Militante are guilty of conspiracy?
HELD/RULING: WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the
criminal liability of accused-appellant Javier Mirabete is concerned, and insofar as the civil
liability of all the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4854-4855. The prosecution has clearly and
convincingly established the existence of a conspiracy in the planning and execution of the
crimes. Conspiracy arises at the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly to commit
the felony and forthwith to actually pursue it.
The conspiracy in the instant case was established at their meeting. Apparently, nobody
disagreed with the plan to shoot the victims because immediately after the meeting, all the
accused and Wilson Lita were seen walking as a group towards Barangay Salvacion. When
they saw their intended victims, they shot them and fled towards the RCPI building. Even those
left at the waiting shed likewise fled towards the same direction. Clearly, the shooting of the
Lagasons was characterized by a unity of purpose, intention and design.
It hardly matters that accused-appellant was not actually present at the specific place of the
shooting. He was at the waiting shed but this was for the purpose of providing security to those
who carried out the shooting. The waiting shed was located along the way to the Lagasons'
house, strategically at the entrance to and exit from it.
A conspiracy, once established, makes each of the conspirators liable for the acts of the others.
40 All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation
because in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.

Art. 11: People vs. Apolinar (1936) Defense of Property

Facts:

Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias
Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in
Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking
over said land when he observed that there was a man carrying a bundle on his
shoulder. Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his attention but
he ignored him.The defendant fired in the air and then at the person. The man,
identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and consequently
narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in the back by a
shotgun. He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of the spinal column which wounds were circular in formand a little bigger than a quarter of an inch,
according to the medical report of Dr. Mananquil. Petras died of the wounds he
sustained.The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident
and gave a sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on
December 23, 1936.
Issue
Whether or not, the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property
Held/Ruling:
No; the right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of
property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

Article 11. People v Delima (1922) Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of

Right/Office *Doctrine of Self-Help
Facts:
Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence. The policeman
Felipe Delima, who was looking for him, found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a
pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and demanded his surrender. The fugitive
answered with a stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired
his revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without parting with his
weapon. These peace officer went after him and fired again his revolver, this time hitting and
killing him.
Issue: Whether or not, Felipe Delima has a criminal liability for the death of Lorenzo Napilon?
Held/Ruling: Article 8, No. 11, of the Penal Code being considered, Felipe Delima committed
no crime, and he is hereby acquitted with the costs de oficio. So ordered.
That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault and
disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such an
extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstances.lawphil.net