THE UNITED STATE vs.

PROTASIO EDUAVE
FACTS: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind, in
partat least, with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the lumbar region and
slightly tothe side eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all
of the musclesand tissues of that part. Fortunately the girl was able to surviveThe
motive of the crime was that the accused was incensed at the girl for the reason
thatshe had theretofore charged him criminally before the local officials with having
rapedher and with being the cause of her pregnancy. He was her mother's querido
and was living with her as such at the time the crime here charged was
committedThe accused is charged with frustrated murder.
We are satisfied that there was an intentto kill in this case. A deadly weapon was
used. The blow was directed toward a vital partof the body. The aggressor stated his
purpose to kill, thought he had killed, and threw the body into the bushes. When he
gave himself up he declared that he had killed thecomplainant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is to be charged with frustrated murder.
HELD: YES. The crime cannot be attempted murder. This is clear from the fact that
thedefendant performed All of the acts which should have resulted in the
consummatedcrime and voluntarily desisted from further acts.A felony is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony as a consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. To put it in another way, incase of
an attempt the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense.On the
other hand, attempted murder is defined as when the offender commences
thecommission of the felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts
of execution which constitute the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than hisown voluntarily desistance. Hence the subjective phase is completely
passed.Subjectively the crime is complete.The subjective phase is that portion of
the acts constituting the crime included betweenthe act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last act performed by theoffender which, with the
prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From thattime forward the
phase is objective. It may also be said to be that period occupied by theacts of the
offender over which he has control that period between the point where he begins
and the points where he voluntarily desists. If between these two points theoffender
is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance,
thesubjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so
stopped butcontinues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated.

People vs. Rodil

FACTS:April 24, 1971 around 1:00 pm1. Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime
of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court for the death of Lt. Masanaof the Philippine
Constabulary.2. Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard Ricardo
Ligsa and policeman Felix Mojica washaving lunch inside a restaurant in front of the
Indang Market.3. While they were eating, their attention was called by Rodil who
was outside blowing his whistle.4. Masana, in civilian clothing, accompanied by Fidel
went outside and asked Rodil, after identifying himself asa PC officer, whether the
gun that was tucked under his shirt had a license.5. Instead of answering,
Rodil attempted to draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the gun and gave it to
Masana.6. The three went inside the restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for
the gun on a coupon bond paper andhe asked Rodil to sign it. Rodil refused to do
so.7. Masana refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand
up Rodil pulled out his doublebladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times
on the chest and stomach causing his death after severalhours.8. While
the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt. Masana who
were all seated at aseparate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from
the table, stood up to assist him.
RULING: With two aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstance,
the appellant should therefore be condemnedto suffer the maximum period of
reclusion temporal the penalty prescribed for homicide.WHEREFORE, HAVING BEEN
FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE AGGRAVATEDBY
CONTEMPT FOR OR INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR DISREGARD OF THE
RESPECT DUE THEOFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK, APPELLANT FLORO
RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TOSUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF
IMPRISONMENT RANGING FROM 12 YEARS OF RECLUSIONTEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM.

PEOPLE vs. GARCIA (G.R. No. 126252)Facts:

On November 28, 1994, Enmodias and SPO3 Panganiban boarded a
passenger jeepney from their to Baguio City. He took the seat behind the jeepney d
river while SPO3Panganiban sat opposite him. Accused Garcia boarded and sat
beside the driver. Thepolicemen smelled marijuana which seemed to emanate from
accused's bag. To confirm their suspicion, they decided to follow accused when he
gets off the jeepney.The policemen followed the accused and later on identified
themselves to him and asked thelatter if they can inspect his bag. Upon surrender
of the bag, bricks of marijuana werediscovered. As a consequence, the accused was
arrested and the bag seized.The next day, the policemen executed their joint
affidavit of arrest and transferred theaccused to the Baguio city jail. Verification by
the arresting officers of the records at theNarcotics Command revealed that the
accused's name was in the list of drug dealers.

Issue: Whether the police officers were guilty of arbitrary detention and delay in
the deliveryof detained persons.
Held: The police officers cannot be held liable for arbitrarily detaining appellant at
the CISoffice. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes a public
officer whoshall detain another for some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the
proper authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital
penalties. In the present case, therecord bears that appellant was arrested for
possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana onNovember 28, 1994 at 2 p.m., a crime
punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He wasdetained for further
investigation and delivered by the arresting officers to the court in theafternoon of
the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of investigation didnot
exceed the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36 hours from the time of his arrest.