PEOPLE v.

BORINAGA

Facts:
 Harry H. Mooney, an American resident of Calubian, Leyte, entered into a contract
with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish cage. Basilio Borinaga is associated
with Lawaan in the said project.
 Mar. 4, 1929 (day) -- Lawaan, with some of his men, went to Mooney's shop and
tried to collect from him the whole amount fixed for the entire project, regardless of
the fact that only about 2/3 of the fish corral had been finished. Mooney refused to
pay, and Lawaan warned him that if he did not pay, "something would happen to
him."
 Borinaga had earlier been heard to tell a companion that he will stab Mooney.
 Mar. 4, 1929 (evening) -- Mooney was in the company of his neighbor, Perpetua
Najarro. He was seated on a chair with his back towards the window of Najarro's
store. Najarro saw Borinaga approaching the store window, and Borinaga struck at
Mooney with a knife, but his knife landed on the back of Mooney's chair. Mooney
fell, but was not injured.
 Borinaga returned to the store with his knife in his hand, but was unable to strike at
Mooney since the latter and Najarro shone a flashlight in his direction; Borinaga ran
away.
 Later, Borinaga was overheard stating that he had missed his chance to stab Mooney
and even apologized to his friends regarding the matter.
 Borinaga was charged in the CFI of Leyte for the crime of frustrated murder.

Issue: W/N the facts constitute frustrated murder or attempted murder.

Held:
 The crime committed was that of frustrated murder.
 The essential condition of a frustrated crime is that the author should perform all
acts of the execution, and this was present in the attack. Nothing remained to be
done to accomplish the work of the assailant completely.

PEOPLE v. KALALO

Facts:
 Appellant Marcelo Kalalo (cousin of the deceased Marcelino Panaligan) and Isabela
Holgado (sister of the deceased Arcadio Holgado) had a litigation over a parcel of
land in Calumpang, San Luis, Batangas.
 Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the said land during the agricultural years 1931 and 1932,
but when harvest time came it as Isabela Holgado who took all that had been
planted.
 Oct. 1, 1932 -- Isabela and Arcadio Holgado ordered several laborers to have the said
land plowed.
  Marcelo Kalalo found out about this and went to the land with his brothers Felipe
and Juan Kalalo, Gregorio Ramos, etc., armed with bolos. Upon their arrival, they
ordered those who were plowing to stop what they were doing, and the laborers
followed the order.
 Marcelino Panaligan arrives, and tells the laborers to continue with their work.
 Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio Holgado, while Felipe and Juan Kalalo and
Gregorio Ramos all approached Marcelino Panaligan.
 Fausta Abrenica, mother of the Kalalos, then remarked, "What is detaining you?"
and they all simultaneously struck with their bolos, with Marcelo Kalalo slashing
Arcadio Holgado, and Felipe and Juan Kalalo along with Gregorio Ramos slashed
Marcelino Panaligan. Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly.
 Marcelo Kalalo then took Marcelino Panaligan's revolver from a holster on the
latter's belt, and fired four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing from the scene
in order to save his own life.
 Felipe and Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos were not arrested until after several
days after the incident took place, because they had been hiding in order to avoid
arrest.

Issue: W/N the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in the
killing of both Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado;
W/N the appellant Marcelo Kalalo is guilty of attempted homicide in the
attempt to shoot Hilarion Holgado.

Held:
 Regarding the first issue -- The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty of
murder in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength, while the trial court held that they are guilty of simple homicide but with
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
 Under the RPC, the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength," if proven to have
been present, raises homicide to the category of murder. The Supreme Court does
not agree that there was the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength" in the said
case, because the deceased were also armed--Arcadio had a bolo, while Marcelino
had a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their strength was
almost balanced because there is no doubt that a revolver is as effective as, if not
more so, than three bolos. Appellants are pronounced guilty of homicide.
 Regarding the second issue -- Marcelo Kalalo, not having contented himself with
firing only once, fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado. This shows that he
was bent on killing the latter. The acts of Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted
homicide with no modifying circumstance