THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AURELIO LAMAHANG, defendant-appellant.

August 3, 1935

G.R. No. L-43530

Honesto K. Bausa for appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee.

FACT

Aurelio Lamahang was found guilty of attempted robbery by the Court of First
Instance of IloIlo after he was caught in the act by Jose Tomambing, a policeman,
making an opening on the wall of a store of cheap goods using an iron bar.
Tomambing was patrolling along the street when he caught site of Lamahang who
had already made an opening on the wall. Because of this, he was instantly
arrested and placed under custody.

ISSUE

Whether or not Aurelio Lamahang was guilty of attempted robbery.

RULING

No, Aurelio Lamahang is not guilty of attempted robbery.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states that there is an attempted felony “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.”

In the case at bar, it was clear that Lamahang had the intention of entering the
store by means of violence as manifested by the opening on the wall which he
successfully made. However, because of the timely arrival of Tomambing, he was
only able to develop the mere beginning of his intended act. There was nothing in
the record to prove that there was a concrete finding of robbery because the act
was simply entering by means of force and was not able to able to develop into a
concrete offense of taking possession of some personal property belonging to
other persons for the purpose of gain.

The ruling of the Supreme Court holds that Lamahang was not guilty of attempted
robbery, but guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of
force.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

vs.
HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL, et. al, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

October 1, 2013
G.R. No. 172707

FACT
Halil Gambao Esmail, along with ten others, was found guilty of beyond reasonable
doubt of kidnapping for ransom. Esmail and his group kidnapped Lucia Chan Lee, a
businesswoman, for the purpose of extorting ransom amounting to Php 400,000.00.
Some of the members kept coming back to the victim’s house and were changing
shifts in guarding her. The group unlawfully barged inside the house of the victim
armed with high-powered firearms and took her away on board a Tamaraw FX van.
The victim’s son reported the incident to the police, which immediately conducted an
investigation and rescue operation.

ISSUE
Whether or not accused is liable for the crime of conspiracy.

RULING

Yes, accused, along with the others, are liable for the crime of conspiracy.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code expressed that therei s conspiracy when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it.
In the case at bar, the testimonies, when taken together, reveal the common purpose
of the accused-appellants and how they were all united in the execution of
kidnapping for ransom from beginning to end. There were testimonies proving that
some of them kept coming back to the victim’s house and during the kidnapping, the
members were shifting in guarding her. The accused were present when the ransom
money was recovered and when the rescue operations was conducted. Moreover,
Chan positively identified the accused-appellants and placed all of them at the crime
scenes.

The Supreme Court held that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all
the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them
becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. Hence, found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as principals in the crime of kidnapping for ransom and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,

vs.
EULOGIO IGNACIO, accused-appellant.

February 10, 2000

G.R. No. 134568

FACT
Eulogio Ignacio alias Loloy was a caretaker of a fishpond in their place. He was
convicted of murder by the Regional Trial Court after shooting Jessie Lacson, a
minor, when he saw him carrying a young coconut that was picked from the
property. He thought that Lacson was stealing said coconut and that he carried
the act on mere impulse as a lawful defense of the landowner’s property when he
saw him fleeing.

ISSUE
Whether or not Eulogio Ignacio is exempted from criminal liability in lawful
defense of property rights.
RULING
No, he is not exempted from criminal liability in lawful defense of property rights.

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code states that anyone who acts in defense of his
person or rights shall not be held criminally liable if the other party shows
unlawful aggression and there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel such aggression.

In the case at bar, the first requisite was not proven because there was no
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Neither the victim had a weapon
nor did Ignacio face a risk to be harmed. He was not attacked by unarmed Lacson.
In fact, he did not even saw the victim stealing the young coconut, but instead
only suspected him of stealing it. Furthermore, assuming that unlawful aggression
was proven, there was no necessity to shoot because, according to him, the victim
was already running away when hit.

The Supreme Court held that the accused is guilty for the crime of murder having
been established by proof of beyond reasonable doubt.