PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES vs LAMAHANG

G.R. No. L-43530

August 03, 1935

FACTS:

 The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision finding him guilty of attempted robbe
ry.
 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, caughtthe 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 accusedhad 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.

ISSUE:

WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery

RULING:

YES, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery. The accused is then held guilty of attempted trespass to dw
elling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating circumstances and sentenced to three
months and one day of arresto mayor.

RATIONALE:

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 necessa
rily ripen into a concrete offense. In the case of robbery, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take po
ssession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the instant case, it may only be i
nferred as a logical conclusion that his evident intention was to enter by means of force said store against the will of its ow
ner. 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 na
ture 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 w
hich said facts are supposed to produce must be direct; the intention must be ascertained from the facts and therefore it is n
ecessary, 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 constit
ute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to dwelling. Against the accused must be taken into consideration the aggrav
ating circumstances of nighttime and former convictions, — inasmuch as the record shows that several final judgments for
robbery and theft have been rendered against him — and in his favor, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.