CRIMINAL LAW I CASES
Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 78038 Jan. 18, 1991
ISSUE: W/N the evidence
presented by the prosecution
before the Sandiganbayann has
established the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt?
Valenzuela vs. People
G.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007
ISSUE: W/N the crime
convicted to the Petitioner falls
under consummated or
attempted theft?
Information charged: Crime of Frustrated Qualified
Theft defined under Article 310 of the Penal Code.
 Venturina was a trackman of PNR and under the
supervision of Engr. Pantaleon, Jr.
 Engr. went on a mission, Venturina and Habalo did not
join.
 Meanwhile, Marinay, PNR Security Investigating
Officer, was instructed to San Rafael Bulacan to look into
reports about certain persons dismantling and cutting rails
of PNR abandoned lines in the area.
 When Manrinay and company arrived, the found three
persons with acetylene torch, cutting rails and I-beam of
the abandoned PNR railroad.
 The 3 men were identified, Venturina, Lolito Magan and
Renato Rojo, non-PNR emplyees.
 Marinay asked about their activity in the vicinity,
Venturina told that he was instructed by team leader to
cut the rails bringing them in Caloocan.
 Venturina also showed a handwritten authority
purportedly signed by Engr. Pantaleon.
 Marinay bought the 3 to the PC headquarters and otw,
they saw Antonio Tebajia, admitted ownership to the
torch and all of them were taken to the PC headquarters.
Information charged and rendered decision: Theft.
Petitioner having performed the felonious acts imputed
against him, decision by the CA upholding the existence
of Frustrated Theft.
 No rationale behind the rulings has never been affirmed
by this Court.
 Petitioner Valenzuela and Calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within SM complex
along North EDSA by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard,
who was the manning his post at the open parking area of
the supermarket.
SANDIGANBAYAN: Finding Venturina guilty of the lesser offense of
simple theft at the attempted stage.
SUPREME COURT: The Sandiganbayan did not err in findings that
Venturina was in conspiracy with the other accused in the crime of
simple theft.
1. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony.
All those who in one way or another helped and
cooperated in the consummation of the crime are
considered as co-principals.
2. The intent to gain is presumed from all furtive taking
of useful property appertaining to another unless
special circumstances disclose a different motivation
on the perpetrator’s part.
This Court is convinced that Venturina was caught red-handed in the
very act of attempting to steal government property. Were it not for the
timely intervention of alert PNR security agents, then Venturina and his
co-conspirators would have succeeded in loading the cut rails on a
waiting truck and disposed of the for their personal benefit.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Convicted petitioners Valenzuela and
Calderon of the crime Consummated Theft.
Petitioners filed Notice of Appeal, but only Valenzuela was
briefed, causing Calderon as abandoned and consequently
dimissed.
Petitioner Valenzuela argues he should be convicted only with
Frustrated Theft, since he was never placed in a position to
freely dispose of the articles stolen.
COURT OF APPEALS: Rejected the contention of Valenzuela and
affirmed its conviction.

United States vs. Eduave
No. 12256 Feb. 6, 1917
ISSUE: W/N the accused should
be convicted of frustrated or
attempted murder crime?
People vs. Gutierrez
G.R. No, 188602 Feb 4, 2010
 Lego saw the petitioner Valenzuela who was wearing ID
with a mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling
a push cart with cases of detergent Tide.
 Petitioner unload the cases in an open parking space, were
Calderon was waiting.
 After 5 mins, petitioner Valenzuela emerged some more
Tide Utramatic and again unloaded it to the same parking
area.
 Petitioner Valenzuela then haled a taxi, boarded towards
the open parking space, loaded the cartons of Tide, and
boarded the taxi with Calderon.
 Since all were eyed by Lago, he stopped the taxi and
asked the petitioner for receipt of the merch. Petitioners
asked to the driver to go, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow securities.
 Petitioners were apprehended.
Information charged and rendered decision: Judgement
of the Court of First Instance of Misamis, accused was
guilty of Frustrated Murder.
 The motive of the crime: The accused was the querido of
the victim’s mother. Accused was incensed at the girl for
the reason that she had charged him criminally before
with having raped her and with being the cause of her
pregnancy.
 That one day, the accused rushed upon the victim girl and
suddenly struck her from behind with a sharp bolo,
producing a frightful gash in the lumbar, severing all of
the muscles and tissues on that part.
Information charged: Murder, Frustrated Murder, and
3 counts of Attempted Murder.
 Regis, Marcelo, Gallemit, Boneo, Dalit were talking to
each other in front of the deceased’s house.
 They notice the presence of the appellant, he was armed,
when he was 2 arms length away from them, appellant
raised his .45 caliber pistol and shot the deceased Regis.
 Marcelo huddled Regis, others stood up from their seats.
* Whether under the given facts, the theft should be deemed as
consummated or merely frustrated.
SUPREME COURT: We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that
the taking by the petitioner was completed in this case. With the intent
to gain, he acquired physical possession of the stolen detergent for a
considerable period.
1. The Court concluded that under the Revised Penal Code, there
is no crime of frustrated theft. No language, expressly or
impliedly allows that the free disposition of the items stolen is
in any way determinative od whether the crime of theft has been
produced.
2. The Court cannot weight starre decisis on the cases mentioned
herein.
Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Consummated
Theft.
COURT OF APPEAL:
1. We are of opinion that the crime committed would have
been murder if the girl has been killed.
Such an attack necessitates the finding that it was
made treacherously; that that being so the crime would
have been murder if death resulted.
2. We are of opinion that the crime was frustrated and not
attempted murder.
The crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes
independent of the will of the offender.
He is not stopped by such intervention, still continues until he performs
the last act.
THEN, that case is clear. Accused is guilty of Frustrated Murder.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: RTC convicted the accused of murder,
frustrated murder, and 3 counts of attempted murder.
COURT OF APPEALS: Through the OSG, appellant should be held
liable only for attempted murder not frustrated murder with respect to
Dalit, for the inflicted wound was not life-threatening. Testimony of
self-defense cannot be given credence.
SUPREME COURT: Affirmed the CA ruling that appellant os guilty
of attempted murder, NOT of frustrated murder. No convincing proof

People vs. Orita
G.R. No. 88724 Apr. 3, 1990
ISSUE: W/N frustrated rape can
be the crime convicted against
the accused?
 Appellant fired several shots, one hit Dalit’s arm, Dalit that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his
ran and hid behind a car. death had medical help was not been provided.
 Boneo and Gallemit ran up the streets. Affirmed the CA rulings with modifications on the awards of damage.
 Appellant stayed at where he first shot and even shouted
“Pagnaabutan ko kayo, pagpapatayin ko kayo!”
 Dalit, behind a car, sought refuge at BLISS Makati and
contacted police.
 Medical assistance: Dalit, his wound was dressed. Regis,
died.
 Accused’s testimony: Self-defense
Information charged: Crime of Rape. RTC rendered the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Convicted the accused of frustrated
decision guilty of the crime. rape.
 Complainant was a 19-year old freshman student; SUPREME COURT: We find no cogent reason to depart from the well-
Cristina’s classmates brought her home from a party. settled rule that the findings of the fact of the trial court.
 Upon entering her boarding house, somebody held her 1. The victim not only stated she was raped, she testified on
and poked a knife to her neck. She recognized the how the rape was committed.
appellant. 2. Interpreting the findings of the medcert are conclusive proof
 She pleaded to release her but he ordered to go upstairs of struggle against the force and violence exerted on the victim.
with him. His left arm wrapped around her neck, and his
right hand poking a balisong to her neck and dragged We are of the opinion that the particular provision on frustrated rape is
her upstairs. a DEAD PROVISION.
 Upon entering the room, appellant pushed Cristina who We find the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
hid her head on the wall, appellant undressed himself, doubt of the crime of CONSUMMATED rape.
ordered the complainant to take off her clothes. Cristina RTC decision is modified: Accused Lito is guilty beyond reasonable
because of fright, followed his commands. doubt of the crime rape.
 He ordered her to lie down on the floor and mounted
her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept
on moving.
 Appellant lay down on his back. At this stage, appellant
had both his hand on the floor. Complainant thought of
escaping. She dashed out to the next room and fled to
another and jumped out through a window.
 Still naked, she darted to municipal building until a
policeman found her naked, sitting on the floor and
crying. They rescued her.
Perez vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 143838 May 9, 2002
ISSUE: W/N the acts of accused
constituted attempted rape or
acts of lasciviousness?
Colinares vs. People
G.R. No. 182748 Dec. 13, 2011
ISSUE: W/N Arnel acted in self-
defense when he struck Rufino
on the head with a stone
W/N Arnel is guilty of frustrated
homicide
W/N he may still apply for
probation given a finding that
Arnel is entitled to conviction for
lower offense
Information charged: Attempted rape
 Mother’s testimony: She was washing clothes outside
their house, when she heard someone cry for Inay. She
peeped into their window and saw her daughter Julita
lying flat pinned down by the accused. Mother rushed
inside and accused was hiding under the bed, asked him
to come out. She thought of hacking him with bolo, but
realized she can.t, so she dragged him out.
 Victim (Julita)’s testimony: She was washing dished,
proceeded to the bedroom to store away their beddings.
Then out of nowhere, accused appeared, embraced her
held her breast, kissed her lips and neck, placed her hands
inside her pant and held her private part. Accused
whispered “Sige na pagbigyan mo nako”, there is when
Julita screamed for help. She added that this was not the
first time accused assaulted her.
 Accused Perez’ testimony: It was consented and he and
Julita were already becoming intimate.
Information charged: Frustrated Homicide
 Complainant Rufino testified that he and Jesus went out
to buy cigarettes when out of nowhere Arnel sneaked
behind and struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge
stone.
 Ananias said he was walking he saw Rufino lying by the
roadside so he tried to help but someone struck him. It
was Arnel that had hit him pala.
 Paciano said he saw the whole incident. He sought help
and brought them to the Hospital.
 Arnel’s argument: Self-defense. He invokes that he
should be convicted for the lesser crime of attempted
homicide and with reduction of the penalty imposed on
him, thus, he should be entitled to apply for probation
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Rendered judgement finding accused
Perez guilty of the crime of attempted rape.
COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed in toto. Echoed the ruling of the
RTC.
SUPREME COURT:
1. The medcert found physical injuries in the neck and navel
which could have been caused by blunt force; a force
would have been unnecessary IF JULITA CONSENTED
TO THESE ACTS.
2. The Court is not inclined to deviate from the previous
court’s findings that the petitioner, against the will if the
complainant, performed sexual acts on her.
However, the records show that the crime committed by the petitioner
was ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, not attempted rape.
1. There is no showing in this case that the petitioner’s sexual
organ had even touched (or inserted) complainant’s vagina
nor any body part.
2. Acts of appellant constitutes lewd acts against the
complainant.
3. Although the information filed against the petitioner was
attempted rape, he can be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness because the crime of lasciviousness is
included in rape.
CA decision is modified. Accused Perez is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lascioviousness.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Finding Arnel guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide
Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under the law
was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation.
COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed the RTC decision.
SUPREME COURT:
1. The lower courts found that Arnel failed to prove the element
of unlawful aggression. No one corroborated Arnel’s
testimony. Arnel did not submit any medical certificate to
prove his point that he suffered injuries.
2. Main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the
accused’s intent to take victim’s life: homicidal intent. Intent to
kill is inferred from: (a) the means of the offender used (b) the
nature, (c) location, and (c) number of wounds the accused
inflicted on his victim. Arnel struck the victim’s head with a
in case the Court metes out a new penalty that makes his
offense probationable.
huge stone, the blow was forceful, and considering the impact
produced and the location where it was inflicted—the Court is
convinced that he intended to kill him. However, the Court is
inclined to hold accused guilty of attempted, not frustrated
homicide.
* When accused intended to kill his victim, use of a
deadly weapon, but the victim did not die because of
timely medical assistance—the crime is
FRSUTRATED
* When accused intended to kill his victim, use of a
deadly weapon, but the victim did not die because of
wounds are not fatal— the crime is only
ATTEMPTED
* The Court finds Arnel liable only for Attempted
Homicide and entitled to the mitigating circumstances
of voluntary surrender.
3. Ordinarily, he no longer be entitled to apply probation, he is
having appalled from the judgement of RTC. However, the
Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted
homicide and with this new penalty, it would be but fair to
allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the
case.
* The Court explained that he did not have a choice
between appeal and probation. The stiff penalty that
the RTC imposed on him denied him that choice.
Arnel raised issue of correctness of the penalty
imposed on him. In a way, Arnel sought from the
beginning to bring down the penalty to the level where
the law would allow him to apply for probation.
* The Court’s finding that Arnel was guilty not of
frustrated but of attempted homicide, is an original
conviction that FOR THE FIRST TIME imposes on
him a probational penalty
* How can the Court expect him to feel penitent over
a crime which as the Court now finds, he did not
commit?
The Court partially grants the petition, modifies the decision of
CA. The Supreme Court finds Arnel guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of attempted homicide and without prejudice to him
applying for probation.
Intod vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 103119 October 21,
1992,
Information charged and rendered decision: RTC and
CA both ruled finding the accused guilty of the crime of
Attempted Murder
 Accused Intod, together with Tubio, and Daligdig,, went
to Mandaya’s house and asked him to go with them to the
house of Palangpangan.
 They had a meeting with Dumalagan. Accused told
Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan killed because of
a land disputed between them.
 He added that Mandaya should accompany the 4 of them
otherwise he will also be killed.
 Intod and companions are all armed and arrived at
Palangpangan’s house. Mandaya pointed out the room
where the target victim is, and the fired at the said room.
 It turned out that the target victim was in another city and
the house was occupied by her son-in-law and his family.
 No one was in the room so no one was hit by the
discharge.
 Intod’s argument: Since the target victim was not there,
there was no crime.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: The petitioner Intod is convicted and
found guilty of the crime of attempted murder.
COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed in toto and echoed RTC’s decision.
SUPREME COURT: Impossible crimes are recognized in the
Philippines. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not
merely a defense, but an ACT PENALIZED by itself.
The RTC and CA holding that the petitioner is guilty of attempted
murder is modified.
SC hold petitioner guilty of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME as defined and
penalized in the RPC.
The Court resolved that the acts executed by Intod is still
criminally liable under Article 4(2).