Case Summary (G.R. No. 148154)
Trial Court Decision
The Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Lamahang of attempted robbery, imposing two years and four months of prison correctional, ten years and one day of prison mayor (as habitual delinquent), accessory penalties, and costs. Lamahang appealed.
Issue on Appeal: Nature of the Attempted Offense
The Supreme Court examined whether the acts constituted an attempt to commit robbery or merely an attempt to trespass a dwelling. It stressed that an attempt in the Penal Code requires overt acts with a direct, unavoidable connection to a defined crime’s consummation. Acts susceptible of innocent interpretation cannot alone sustain liability for an attempted felony.
Analysis of Criminal Intent and Overt Acts
Breaking into a structure “against the will” of the owner may support attempted trespass to dwelling but does not automatically evidence intent to commit theft or violence. The record lacked any direct indication that Lamahang, once inside, intended to steal or inflict harm. The Court noted prevailing doctrine and Spanish precedents requiring that overt acts must disclose unequivocally the criminal objective.
Distinction Between Attempted Robbery and Trespass
Robbery requires proof of intent to appropriate another’s property for gain. Here, Lamahang’s initial acts—breaking a board and unfastening another—merely showed intent to enter by force. No property was targeted, and no tools for theft or violence beyond the bar appeared. Accordingly, the proper charge is attempted trespass to dwelling under Article 280.
Penalty and Aggravating/Mitigating Circumstances
Article 280, paragraph 2, prescribes prision correctional (medium to maximum) and a fine for consummated forcible trespass. Attempt lowers the penalty by two degrees (Article 51), resulting in arresto mayor (minimum to medium). Two aggravati
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 148154)
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance of Iloilo found Aurelio Lamahang guilty of attempted robbery.
- Sentence: two years and four months of prisión correccional plus ten years and one day of prisión mayor (habitual delinquent enhancement), accessory penalties, and costs.
- Lamahang appealed to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 43530.
Material Facts
- Date and place: Early dawn, March 2, 1935, streets of Delgado and C. R. Fuentes, Iloilo City.
- Actor: Policeman Jose Tomambing on patrol.
- Defendant: Aurelio Lamahang, caught in the act of using an iron bar to break and unfasten boards in the wall of Tan Yu’s cheap‐goods store.
- Store conditions: Owner Tan Yu and another person sleeping inside; only one board broken and one unfastened when the policeman arrived.
- Arrest: Tomambing approached on hearing noise, arrested Lamahang on the spot, placed him in custody.
Issue on Appeal
- Whether the acts of breaking and unfastening boards in a store wall constitute an attempt to commit robbery under the Penal Code.
Legal Principle on Criminal Attempt
- An attempt must bear a logical and necessary relation to a specific, concrete felony defined by law.
- Mere beginnings of execution do not suffice unless they clearly point to the consummation of a particular crime.