People vs. Borinaga G.R. No. 33463 December 18, 1930 (frustrated)

 superseded by Kalalo. no injuires, attempted murder

People vs. Borinaga

 

Facts:

The victim Harry Mooney, an American who resided in Calubian Leyte, contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral.  Lawaan attempted to collect the whole amount of the contract even though the corral is not yet finished. Upon Mooney‘s refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him that something would happen to him.

 

On that evening, Mooney was in the store of his neighbor, sitting with his back towards a window when suddenly Basilio Borinaga struck him with a knife. The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from the impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the scene but after ten minutes, he returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by Mooney and his neighbor frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.

 

Held:

 YES.  As an essential condition of a frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution, attending the attack. There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts. The subjective phase of the criminal act was passed.

 

Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real:

“The acts of execution perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not could they have produced it because the blow did not reach his body; therefore, the culprit did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony. There was lacking the infliction of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of Mooney.”

What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not his death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony, according to the law, and not the preventing of the performances of all the acts of execution which constitute a felony, as in the present case.

Attempted murder only.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617)

Executive Construction ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. CUSTOMS (29 SCRA 617) FACTS Asturias Sugar Central, Inc., a domestic company engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for exert, was using jute bags as container for sugar. Consequently, the company made two importations of jute bags, both of which entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon the petitioner's filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, under the condition that the bags shall be exported within 1 year from the date of importation. However, not all the bags were exported within the 1 year period. Petitioner asked for an extension, but it was denied. The Collector of Customs assessed customs duties and special import tax. Issues:   a.) Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.   b.) Whether or not interpretation or construction of...
Read more