Scribd
Upload
219 views1 page

People Vs Aurelio Lamahang

The accused, Lamahang, was caught by a policeman breaking into a store by making an opening in the wall with an iron bar. Lamahang had broken one board and removed another from the wall when the policeman arrived and arrested him. The lower court found Lamahang guilty of attempted robbery. However, the higher court held that Lamahang was guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling, not attempted robbery. There was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, which is required for attempted robbery. His actions could be interpreted as either innocent or criminal, so they alone could not prove an attempted or frustrated crime.

Uploaded by

Hiroshi Carlos
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
219 views1 page

People Vs Aurelio Lamahang

The accused, Lamahang, was caught by a policeman breaking into a store by making an opening in the wall with an iron bar. Lamahang had broken one board and removed another from the wall when the policeman arrived and arrested him. The lower court found Lamahang guilty of attempted robbery. However, the higher court held that Lamahang was guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling, not attempted robbery. There was no evidence that Lamahang intended to steal property, which is required for attempted robbery. His actions could be interpreted as either innocent or criminal, so they alone could not prove an attempted or frustrated crime.

Uploaded by

Hiroshi Carlos
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

9.

People vs Aurelio Lamahang

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 the accused is guilty of attempted robbery

Held:

Held: NO. He is guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling. 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