CASE DIGEST

People v. Lamahang
Criminal Law 1

Court Supreme Court

Citation G.R. No. 43530
Date August 3, 1935
Petitioner The People of the Philippine Islands
Respondent Aurelio Lamahang
Ponente Recto, J.
Relevant topic Punishable Conduct - Attempt
Prepared by Ralson Hernandez

CASE SUMMARY:
The case is about the error in judgement of the lower court convicting the offender of attempted robbery. An appeal
was filed by the defendant, Aurelio Lamahang, with the SC. The defendant was caught on March 2, 1935 by Jose
Tomambing, a policeman. He was caught making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods.

FACTS:
SUBSTANTIVE
• The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision finding him guilty of attempted robbery.
• At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R.
Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the accused in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the
wall of a store of cheap goods located on the last named street.
• At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
• 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.
PROCEDURAL
• The Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Lamahang of attempted robbery and sentenced him to suffer two
years and four months of prision correccional and to an additional penalty of ten years and one day of prision
mayor for being a habitual delinquent, with the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs of the
proceeding
• Aurelio Lamahang appealed the decision of the lower court
• Supreme Court revoked the appealed sentence and changed the charge to attempted trespass to dwelling

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE HELD
WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery YES

.
RATIO:
• 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. In the case of robbery, 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, it may only be inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident intention
was to enter by means of force said store against the will of its owner. That his final objective, once he
succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other
offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding.

• It must be borne in mind (I Groizard, p. 99) that 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). The relation existing between the facts submitted
for appreciation and the offense which said facts are supposed to produce must be direct; the intention must be
ascertained from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable instances of injustice.

• Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court is of the opinion that the fact under consideration does
not constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling. Against the accused must be taken into
consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

• Aggravating circumstances: Act committed at nighttime and former convictions (several final judgments for
robbery and theft)

1
CASE DIGEST
People v. Lamahang
Criminal Law 1

• Mitigating circumstance: lack of instruction

• Pursuant to article 29 of the same Code, the accused is not entitled to credit for one-half of his preventive
imprisonment.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the sentence appealed from is revoked and the accused is hereby held guilty of attempted trespass to
dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating circumstances and sentenced to
three months and one day of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
None

Footnotes (All the relevant jurisprudence sa case)

ARTICLE 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against
the latter’s will, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prisión correccional in its medium
and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

ARTICLE 29. One-half of the Period of the Preventive Imprisonment Deducted from Term of Imprisonment. —
Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with one-half of the time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, except in
the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime;

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily;

3. When they have been convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversation of public funds, falsification, vagrancy, or
prostitution.