Scribd
Upload
59 views1 page

People vs. Lamahang G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935

The accused was caught attempting to break into a store late at night and was charged with attempted robbery. The Court found that while the accused was guilty of a crime, the evidence only supported a conviction for attempted trespass rather than attempted robbery. Specifically, the Court ruled that an attempted crime must lead directly to the completion of that specific crime based on the accused's overt actions and intentions, which in this case were ambiguous and did not clearly demonstrate an intent to rob. Therefore, the lower court erred in convicting the accused of attempted robbery.

Uploaded by

Jerickson A. Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views1 page

People vs. Lamahang G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935

The accused was caught attempting to break into a store late at night and was charged with attempted robbery. The Court found that while the accused was guilty of a crime, the evidence only supported a conviction for attempted trespass rather than attempted robbery. Specifically, the Court ruled that an attempted crime must lead directly to the completion of that specific crime based on the accused's overt actions and intentions, which in this case were ambiguous and did not clearly demonstrate an intent to rob. Therefore, the lower court erred in convicting the accused of attempted robbery.

Uploaded by

Jerickson A. Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

PRIMO CAMPUHAN y BELLO


G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935
RECTO, J.

FACTS:

At early on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing was patrolling the streets of the City of Iloilo
when he caught Aurelio Lamahang (Accused) in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on
the wall of a store of cheap goods located in C.R. Fuentes Street. At that time, the owner of the store
was asleep. 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 accused was charged with the crime of attempted robbery. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo
found him guilty of the crime charged. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the lower court erred in convicting the accused of attempted robbery.

RULING:

Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime of attempted trespass to dwelling; not attempted robbery. It
is the Court’s opinion that the attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code punished is an
offense which has a logical relation to a particular, concrete offense. An act 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, considering the nature in relation
to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code.

In other words, the attempt to commit the offense must necessarily lead to the realization and
consummation of the said offense. A person cannot be convicted of the attempted stage of that offense if
the intention of the offender is ambiguous.

While it is true that the accused would have succeeded in entering the store without the timely
intervention of the police officer, it cannot be inferred that his objective was to rob the store. In the
actions of the accused, it can only be inferred that his intention was to enter the store against the
will of the owner. Nothing in the record suggests that his intention was to rob, to inflict physical
injuries, or to murder the owner of the store.

You might also like