Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    People v. Lamahang

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    Lamahang was caught breaking boards and unfastening others from the wall of a store using an iron bar. The lower court found him guilty of attempted robbery. The Supreme Court held that Lamahang was not guilty of attempted robbery but rather guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. For an act to be considered an attempted offense under the Penal Code, it must have a logical relation to a particular concrete offense and be the beginning of its execution through overt acts directly leading to its completion. However, in this case there was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, so his acts did not unambiguously connect to the offense of robbery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Lamahang

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    248 views2 pages
    Lamahang was caught breaking boards and unfastening others from the wall of a store using an iron bar. The lower court found him guilty of attempted robbery. The Supreme Court held that Lamahang was not guilty of attempted robbery but rather guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. For an act to be considered an attempted offense under the Penal Code, it must have a logical relation to a particular concrete offense and be the beginning of its execution through overt acts directly leading to its completion. However, in this case there was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, so his acts did not unambiguously connect to the offense of robbery.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lamahang was caught breaking boards and unfastening others from the wall of a store using an iron bar. The lower court found him guilty of attempted robbery. The Supreme Court held that Lamahang was not guilty of attempted robbery but rather guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. For an act to be considered an attempted offense under the Penal Code, it must have a logical relation to a particular concrete offense and be the beginning of its execution through overt acts directly leading to its completion. However, in this case there was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, so his acts did not unambiguously connect to the offense of robbery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views2 pages

    People v. Lamahang

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    Lamahang was caught breaking boards and unfastening others from the wall of a store using an iron bar. The lower court found him guilty of attempted robbery. The Supreme Court held that Lamahang was not guilty of attempted robbery but rather guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. For an act to be considered an attempted offense under the Penal Code, it must have a logical relation to a particular concrete offense and be the beginning of its execution through overt acts directly leading to its completion. However, in this case there was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, so his acts did not unambiguously connect to the offense of robbery.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE vs.

    LAMAHANG
    GR No. L- 43530; August 3, 1935
    Recto, J.
    TOPIC:
    ARTICLE 6. 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.

    FACTS:
    Lamahang was caught by a policeman the act of making an opening with an iron bar on
    the wall of a store of cheap goods. 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 under custody. The lower court found him guilty of
    attempted robbery.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Lamahang is guilty of attempted robbery?
    HELD:
    No, Lamahang is not guilty of attempted robbery. He is guilty of attempted trespass to
    dwelling.
    The attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a
    logical relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is the beginning of the
    execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization
    and consummation. The attempt to commit an indeterminate offense, inasmuch as its
    nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from the standpoint
    of the Penal Code.
    There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the intention of the accused to enter Tan
    Yu's store by means of violence, passing through the opening which he had started to
    make on the wall, in order to commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of the
    police, 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
    performed constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is necessary to establish its
    unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect,
    with the deed which, upon its consummation, will develop into one of the offenses
    defined and punished by the Code.
    It is necessary to prove that said beginning of 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, 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. In offenses not consummated, as the material
    damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be
    ascertained, but the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion
    medio).
    Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the culprit,
    and which show an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish
    grounds by themselves for attempted nor frustrated crimes.

    You might also like