UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY

Tuguegarao City,Cagayan, 3500

Case Digest: search on decided case by any court where in it shows the three stages of
committing crime: ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED, CONSUMMATED.
What to include: the facts or background of the case, the suspects, the decision of the
court.

NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOMEO

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS:

The petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape and acts
of lasciviousness involving different victims. The Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals found Cruz guilty of both crimes charged, hence, this appeal.
Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their
plastic wares and glass wares in La Union. Upon reaching the place, they set up
their tents to have a place to sleep. Petitioner’s wife and their driver went back to
Manila to get more goods. While sleeping, AAA felt that somebody was on top of
her mashing her breast and touching her private part. Norberto ordered her not to
scream or she will be killed. AAA fought back and Norberto was not able to pursue
his lustful desires. AA left the tent to seek for help. When she returned to their tent,
she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. This prompted Norberto to
leave the tent.
Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not possibly
do the acts imputed out in the open as there were many people preparing for the
“simbang gabi”. He further assails the credibility AAA for the crime of rape, alleging
that the complaints were filed only for the purpose of extorting money from him.

DECISION OF THE COURT

The Courts find and PRONOUNCES petitioner NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME

guilty of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, and, ACCORDINGLY, PENALIZES him with the
indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional, as the maximum; ORDERS him
to pay moral damages of ₱30,000.00 and civil indemnity of ₱20,000.00 to the
complainant, with interest of 6% per annum on such awards reckoned from the finality
of this decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs of suit.
 UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY
Tuguegarao City,Cagayan, 3500

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
BENJAMIN CASAS y VINTULAN

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Casas was charged with the crime of Murder and
Attempted Homicide under Articles 248 and 249 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC
and the CA convicted him of the crimes charged.
Records show that accused Casas went to a certain taho factory looking for a
certain Jesus. Failing to find Jesus, he brandished a knife and stuck it into a pail used
for making taho. As a result, Eligio, an employee of the factory confronted Casas and
told him to get rid of the knife. Thereafter, Eligio and Casas had a fistfight.
Consequently, Casas was able to regain the knife and stabbed Eligio twice while the
latter was fleeing. While Casas was in pursuit of Eligio, he ran into Joel who tried to
help Eligio with the use of a bamboo pole. However, Joel slipped and lay prostrate on
the floor. There and then, Casas stabbed him twice who eventually died.
Accused-appellant interpose self-defense to justify his actions of stabbing both Joel
and Eligio alleging that Joel challenged him to a fight and that he stabbed Eligio to
protect himself.

DECISION:

The Court, disagrees that Casas should be convicted of the crime of Murder with
respect to the death of Joel due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the existence of
treachery. The essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen attack
on the victim, without the slightest provocation on the latter’s part. The victim must not
have known the peril he was exposed to at the moment of the attack. Should it appear,
however, that the victim was forewarned of the danger he was in, and, instead of
fleeing from it he met it and was killed as a result, then the qualifying circumstance of
treachery cannot be appreciated. In this case, Joel was fully aware of the danger posed
in assisting Eligio. He knew that Casas was armed with a knife and had just used the
same on Eligio. Joel elected to intervene, and even armed himself with a bamboo pole.
Accordingly, it is rather obvious that Joel was aware of the danger to his life. Hence,
there can be no treachery. As such, accused-appellant is guilty only of the crimes
of Homicide and Attempted Homicide.
 UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY
Tuguegarao City,Cagayan, 3500

Aristotle Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS:
Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a
supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago
(Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area
of the supermarket.  Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card
with the mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart with cases of
detergent of the well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open
parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the
supermarket, and after five minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic
and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space. When
Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon
reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security
guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and
the stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued
that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles
stolen.

The crime is consummated. The following elements of theft as provided for

in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) that there be taking of
personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be
done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things. There was no need of an intent to
permanently deprive the owner of his property to constitute an unlawful taking.
So long as the descriptive circumstances that qualify the taking are present,
including animo lucrandi and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act
that is the taking of personal property of another establishes, at least, that the
transgression went beyond the attempted stage. Insofar as we consider the present
question, unlawful taking is most material in this respect. Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the
felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an
act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. With these
considerations, we can only conclude that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated.
 UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY
Tuguegarao City,Cagayan, 3500

 
People of the Philippines vs. Caballero

Facts

In an afternoon of August 03, 1994, Caballero brothers Armando, Marciano and

Robito were in the house of their other brother Ricardo having drinking sessions in
the Mondragon compound. By 7pmof that same day, Eugene Tayactac and Arnold
Bacurna arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce which was across the
Mondragon compound. Later on, Armando angrily approached Eugene, and the
latter insisted that there is no quarrel between them Armando left and after
minutes, his brothers joined him, armed with knives.  

Armando grabbed Eugene and when the latter resisted, the other Caballeros
ganged up on him. Armando hit him with the wooden support of clothesline and
Eugene was stabbed on the chest three times.Arnold tried to help but he was also
stabbed on the left side of his body and twice on his forearm. Leonilo Broce,
nephew of Wilma, rushed to help but was also stabbed on the chest by Robito.
Eugene and Leonildo eventually died from the sustained wounds.The Caballero
brothers, except for Robito, were convicted of murder for the deaths of Eugene and
Leonildo, and frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold. The appellants insists
that the decision is incorrect.

Decision:
Basing the judgement in consideration of the Article 248, Article 6, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code, the court, beyond reasonable doubt, found the appellants
guilty of the crime frustrated murder.With the fact that appellant Armando used
wooden pole and appellants Ricardo and Robito used knives, it cannot be denied
that there was an intent to kill Arnold. Moreover, the doctor attended on Arnold
testified that the stab wound inflicted upon Arnold was mortal and may have
caused the latter’s death, if not for the timely and effective medical intervention.
WHEREFORE, the acts committed by the appellants is indeed FRUSTRATED
MURDER
 UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY
Tuguegarao City,Cagayan, 3500

REFERRENCES:

http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cfc30?
user=gRllRN1VjRDVYWStDZUJmWjVVTWJ2OVdPazlucFl1RCtodFZSUi9aMkdqST0=

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_212565_2015.html

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jun2007/gr_160188_2007.html

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/apr2003/149028_30.php