People vs. Paddayuman, G.R. No. 120344, 23 January 2002.



Attempted Homicide: We agree with the trial court that attempted homicide was committed by
the petitioner. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.

Facts:
● Florentino Paddayuman, armed with a sharp-pointed bladed instrument, with intent to
kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery did then and there willfully, unlawfully
attacked, assaulted and stabbed Maximo Quilang inflicting upon him stab wounds on his
body.
● The accused had performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the
crime of Murder as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
of causes independent of his own will.
● The accused pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged.
● To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution presented three witnesses:
Maximo Quilang, the victim, Apolinario Dassil and Dr. Cirilo M. Pintucan.
● In the victim’s testimony: he went to the house of his uncle to help in the preparation of
the wedding of the latter’s son the next day. Maximo then had a drinking spree with
Casimiro, Apolinario Dassil and accused Florentino Paddayuman. Maximo told the
accused not to drink too much. Apparently annoyed accused left the drinking session.
Maximo also left and went to his house about 100 meters away from the house of
Casimiro. On his way home, the accused stabbed Maximo at the left side of his body.
The victim asked the accused, “Why did you stab me?”, to which the accused replied, “I
will really kill you.” At this point, the accused again stabbed Maximo in his breast and left,
believing his victim was dying. Feeling weak, Maximo shouted for help.
● Maximo’s nephew, was on his way home when he heard a cry for help. Rushing to the
place from where the call came, Apolinario saw his uncle, Maximo, bathed in his own
blood. Apolinario immediately brought Maximo in a tricycle to the Cagayan Valley
Regional Hospital in Tuguegarao. Dr. Cirilo Pintucan found two stab wounds on the
chest of the victim: one, on the fourth intracostal stage or on the bone at the middle of
the chest, just parallel to the nipple line; and the other, on the lateral portion of the left
chest which is below the nipple line.
● Accused: said maximo was going to burn the granary “We intend to burn all of you
here.” Then holding a lighter, Maximo proceeded to the accused’s house. The accused
tried to stop Maximo but the latter reached for something from the back pockets of his
pants. Thinking it was a deadly weapon, the accused stabbed Maximo at the left side of
his body. Although he was wounded, Maximo was able to draw a knife and tried to hit
the accused. The latter retaliated and stabbed Maximo again on the chest. Maximo then
left and proceeded towards the north. Thereupon, the accused shouted for help in order
to put out the fire in his granary.
● the testimonies of Casimiro Paddayuman and Romeo Macanang. Both testified that on
that night they saw the granary burning but that they did not see who caused it.

1
 ● the RTC rendered its Decision convicting the accused of attempted homicide only, there
being no evidence showing that the stab wounds inflicted on Maximo could cause death
had it not for the timely medical attendance.
Ruling
Here, petitioner stabbed the victim twice on the chest, which is indicative of an intent to kill.
Believing that Maximo was dying, petitioner left. However, there is no evidence that the wounds
sustained by the victim were fatal enough to cause death. This can be gleaned from the
testimony of Dr. Pintucan who did not categorically state whether or not wounds were fatal.
Circumstances which qualify criminal responsibility cannot rest on mere conjectures, no matter
how reasonable or probable, but must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. In the
instant case, the uncertainty on the nature of the wounds warrants the appreciation of a lesser
gravity of the crime committed as this is in accordance with the fundamental principle in Criminal
Law that all doubts should be resolved in favour of the accused. Thus, in People v. Pilones, this
Court held that even if the victim was wounded but the injury was not fatal and could not cause
his death, the crime would only be attempted.

Furthermore, the crime is attempted homicide because the qualifying circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery, as alleged in the Information, were not proven by the prosecution.

2
People vs. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, 24 January 2003.
● August 1998, the petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by
means of force, violence and intimidation Analia Orillosa, his stepdaughter, by
embracing, kissing, and touching her private parts. He then proceeded with carnal
knowledge to remove her skirt and panty and placed himself on top of her and tried to
insert his penis into her vagina. This allegation was repeated four times on different
occasions.
● However, a medical examination revealed that Analia’s hymen was intact, and the other
parts of her vagina were not injured due to an insertion of average-sized adult Filipino
male organ in full erection.
● The testimony of Rossel, Analia’s sister, also proved that no insertion of penis happened
because the petitioner stopped after he saw her.
● Hence, the petitioner was charged for four counts of qualified rape under four separate
information. RTC accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against
him and sentenced to Death Penalty in each and every case as provided for in the
seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.
● However, petitioner averred in his brief that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and that the testimony of Rossel was not taken into
consideration in the decision.

Ruling
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential elements
of an attempted felony are as follows:

The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous
desistance, he is not guilty of an attempted felony. The law does not punish him for his attempt
to commit a felony.
Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and taking into account Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code, the appellant can only be convicted of attempted rape. He commenced the commission
of rape by removing his clothes, undressing and kissing his victim and lying on top of her.
However, he failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape
by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, i.e., by the timely arrival of

3
the victims brother. Thus, his penis merely touched Mary Joy’s private organ. Accordingly, as
the crime committed by the appellant is attempted rape, the penalty to be imposed on him
should be an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to
twelve (12) years of prision mayor as maximum.

4
People vs. Gajetas, G.R. No. L-38325, 24 February 1981. 


“That on or about the 6th day of January, 1972, at around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, at sitio Canlumay,
barrio Tum ingad, municipality of Odiongan, province of Romblon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating with one another, by
means of force and intimidation and with a scythe did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
embrace, attack and assault one Panchita Fosana Ramilo, a pregnant woman, with intent of having
carnal knowledge of her, against her will, thus commencing the commission of the felony of Rape directly
by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of execution which should have produced that crime by
reason of some cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.
“That the accused did not succeed in their evil intent on account of the resistance offered by the offended
party for which reason and in that occasion, the accused attacked and assaulted her with that deadly
weapon, inflicting upon her, mortal injuries in different parts of her body that resulted in her death.
“That the commission of the complex crime was attended with the aggravating circumstance that the
offense was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter not having given any provocation.”

The appellant claims that the first requisite of an attempted felony, namely: That the offender
commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the felony (Aquino, The Revised Penal
Code, 1961 ed., p. 90) was not present. He supports this claim by stating:

“The information merely states ‘- - - embrace, attack and assault one Panchita Fosana Ramilo, a
pregnant woman, with intent of having carnal knowledge of her against her will - - -’ Embracing
is not an overt act that commences the perpetration of rape or intent to have carnal knowledge
of the victim.
“Even the purported extra-judicial confession exhibits “D” and ‘D-1’’ only stated, ‘- - -I
approached Pancing and asked from her to have a sexual intercourse but she refused so that I
embraced her and kissed her - - -’ Asking her to have a sexual intercourse is a mere showing of
a desire, a mental expression not within the realm of Criminal Law. Embracing and kissing are
not overt acts commencing the perpetration of rape. In order that the overt act may be
considered as commencing the perpetration of a felony there must be a direct relation and
intimate connection between the overt act and the felony intented to be committed. If the
intention is to rape a woman the overt act may be putting the woman flat on bed or on the floor,
or raising her dress, or forcibly removing her panty if she had one or mounting on top of her, or
touching delicate parts of her body or exposing his private part or the like but not merely
embracing and kissing because these are only unjust vexation or at most acts of lasciviousness
which are still far from and cannot be considered as overt acts commencing the perpetration of
rape.”

Ruling:
The trial court did not err in considering appellant’s act of embracing the victim with the intent of
having carnal knowledge of her against her will as an overt act commencing the perpetration of
the crime of rape. For, were it not for the resistance offered by the victim, said act of the
appellant would have naturally ended up with the consummation of his criminal objective of
having carnal knowledge of the victim against her will which he expressly admitted in his
extrajudicial confession.

5
The offender’s act need not be one of these mentioned by the appellant in order to be
considered as an overt act commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape when the criminal
objective of having carnal knowledge of the victim against her will is admitted or is sufficiently
established and said the act would naturally end up with the consummation of said criminal
objective unless frustrated by some external cause or by offender’s voluntary desistance,
Furthermore, even the mentioned acts would not be considered as overt acts commencing the
perpetration of the crime of rape when it is sufficiently established that the man had no intention
of having sexual intercourse with the woman without her consent. Of vital importance, therefore,
is the criminal objective in performing the act. Was there intent to commit rape? The evidence
shows there was. Hence the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the crime of
attempted rape with homicide.

6
7
Norberto Cruz y Bartolome v. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014
Bersamin, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness
involving different victims. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Cruz guilty
of both crimes charged, hence, this appeal.

Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their plastic wares and
glass wares in La Union. Upon reaching the place, they set up their tents to have a place to
sleep. Petitioner’s wife and their driver went back to Manila to get more goods. While sleeping,
AAA felt that somebody was on top of her mashing her breast and touching her private part.
Norberto ordered her not to scream or she will be killed. AAA fought back and Norberto was not
able to pursue his lustful desires. AA left the tent to seek for help. When she returned to their
tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. This prompted Norberto to leave the
tent.
Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not possibly do the acts
imputed out in the open as there were many people preparing for the “simbang gabi”. He further
assails the credibility AAA for the crime of rape, alleging that the complaints were filed only for
the purpose of extorting money from him.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of attempted rape against AAA?

HELD:
NO, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge
of a female. Carnal knowledge is defined simply as “the act of a man having sexual bodily
connections with a woman,” in other words, rape is consummated once the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act touches the external genitalia of the female. There must be
sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female
organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape.

Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility. Nonetheless, rape admits of an attempted
stage. In attempted rape, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the
acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of
execution that should produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by
the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a
clear showing of his intent to lie with the female.

8
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim and was already touching her genitalia with his
hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended
his designs on her. Yet, inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his
intended felony would be highly unwarranted. Such circumstances remained equivocal, or
“susceptible of double interpretation,” such that it was not permissible to directly infer from them
the intention to cause rape as the particular injury
The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act of touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such
showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed. Petitioner’s embracing and
touching the victim’s vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The
lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was
on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected
lewdness and lust for her. The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against the
petitioner, even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts leading to
rape.

Hence, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape.