G.R. No.

L-43530 August 3, 1935

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

AURELIO LAMAHANG, defendant-appellant.

Ponente: RECTO, J.:

Doctrine: ATTEMPTED TRESSPASS V. ATTEMPTED ROBBERY. THIS CASE FELL

ON ATTEMPTED TRESSPAS.

Facts:
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.

The fact above stated was considered and declared unanimously by the provincial fiscal of Iloilo, the
trial judge and the Solicitor-General, as constituting attempted robbery, which we think is erroneous.

Issue: WON guilty of attempted robbery.

CFI: Guilty of attempted robbery
RTC Ruling: Guilty of attempted robbery
SC Ruling: No. Guilty of Attempted Trespass.
It is our opinion that the attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code punishes is
that which has a logical relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is the
beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading directly
to its realization and consummation. The attempt to commit an indeterminate offense,
inasmuch as its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from
the standpoint of the Penal Code. 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.
nstant case, there is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the accused may
reasonably be inferred. From the fact established and stated in the decision, that the
accused on the day in question was making an opening by means of an iron bar on the
wall of Tan Yu's store, 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.Viada (Vol. I, p. 47) holds the same opinion when he says that
"the overt acts leading to the commission of the offense, are not punished except when
they are aimed directly to its execution, and therefore they must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense."n view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion, and so
hold that the fact under consideration does not constitute attempted robbery but attempted
trespass to dwelling (People vs. Tayag and Morales, 59 Phil., 606, and decisions of the
Supreme Court of Spain therein cited). Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, this
offense is committed when a private person shall enter the dwelling of another against the
latter's will. The accused may be convicted and sentenced for an attempt to commit this
offense in accordance with the evidence and the following allegation contained in the
information: "... the accused armed with an iron bar forced the wall of said store by
breaking a board and unfastening another for the purpose of entering said store ... and that
the accused did not succeed in entering the store due to the presence of the policeman on
beat Jose Tomambing, who upon hearing the noise produced by the breaking of the wall,
promptly approached the accused ... ." he breaking of the wall should not be taken into
consideration as an aggravating circumstance inasmuch as this is the very fact which in
this case constitutes the offense of attempted trespass to dwelling.

Hence, he is 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.
 

G.R. No. 138033 February 22, 2006

RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
GARCIA, J.:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RTC:
CA:
SC:

The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish dealer based in Davao City. His helpers were TAN, a

driver, and the other deceased victim Marcial LAROA. On 19 January 1983, using a Ford Fiera, they

arrived at Butuan City to sell fish. In the morning of 20 January 1983 SORIANO drove the Fiera to
Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, together with LAROA and a helper of one Samuel Comendador. TAN

was left behind in Butuan City to dispose of the fish left at the Langihan market. He followed

SORIANO and LAROA, however, to Buenavista later in the morning.

While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano TRINIDAD, a member of the Integrated National Police,

assigned at Nasipit Police Station, and residing at Baan, Butuan City, asked for a ride to Bayugan,

Agusan del Sur, which is on the way to Davao City. TRINIDAD was in uniform and had two firearms,

a carbine, and the other, a side-arm .38 caliber revolver. SORIANO, LAROA, TAN, and TRINIDAD

then left Butuan on 20 January 1983 at about 5:20 P.M. bound for Davao City. TAN was driving the

Fiera. Seated to his right was SORIANO, LAROA and the accused TRINIDAD, in that order. When

they reached the stretch between El Rio and Afga, TRINIDAD advised them to drive slowly because,

according to him, the place was dangerous. All of a sudden, TAN heard two gunshots. SORIANO

and LAROA slumped dead. TAN did not actually see the shooting of LAROA but he witnessed the

shooting of SORIANO having been alerted by the sound of the first gunfire. Both were hit on the

head. TRINIDAD had used his carbine in killing the two victims.

TAN then hurriedly got off the Fiera, ran towards the direction of Butuan City and hid himself in the

bushes. The Fiera was still running slowly then but after about seven (7) to ten (10) meters it came

to a halt after hitting the muddy side of the road. TAN heard a shot emanating from the Fiera while

he was hiding in the bushes.

After about twenty (20) to thirty (30) minutes, when a passenger jeep passed by, TAN hailed it and

rode on the front seat. After a short interval of time, he noticed that TRINIDAD was seated at the
back. Apparently noticing TAN as well, TRINIDAD ordered him to get out and to approach him

(TRINIDAD) but, instead, TAN moved backward and ran around the jeep followed by TRINIDAD.

When the jeep started to drive away, TAN clung to its side. TRINIDAD fired two shots, one of which

hit TAN on his right thigh. As another passenger jeep passed by, TAN jumped from the first jeep and

ran to the second. However, the passengers in the latter jeep told him to get out not wanting to get

involved in the affray. Pushed out, TAN crawled until a member of the P.C. chanced upon him and

helped him board a bus for Butuan City.

TRINIDAD's defense revolved around denial and alibi. He contended that he was in Cagayan de Oro

City on the date of the incident, 20 January 1983. At that time, he was assigned as a policeman at

Nasipit Police Station, Agusan del Norte. He reported to his post on 19 January 1983 but asked

permission from his Station Commander to be relieved from work the next day, 20 January, as it was

his birthday. He left Baan, his Butuan City residence, at about 3:00 P.M. on 20 January 1983 and

took a bus bound for Cagayan de Oro City. He arrived at Cagayan de Oro at around 8:00 P.M. and

proceeded to his sister's house at Camp Alagar to get his subsistence allowance, as his sister was

working thereat in the Finance Section.

At his sister's house he saw Sgt. Caalim, Mrs. Andoy, one Paelmo, in addition to his sister. Sgt.

Caalim corroborated having seen TRINIDAD then.

Continuing, TRINIDAD claimed that he left Cagayan de Oro for Butuan at lunch time on 21 January
1983 arriving at the latter place around 6:00 P.M., and went to his house directly to get his service

carbine. He was on his way to Nasipit to report for duty on 21 January 1983 when he was arrested at

around 6:00 P.M. at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte