LTL Report:

Facts: (ACT OUT)

Accused: Basilio Borinaga – a maker of fish corral

Victim: Harry H. Mooney – American, resident of Calubian Leyte
Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. Despite the corral being only
2/3 finished, Lawaan, with some of his men, visited mooney and attempted to collect the whole amount
in their contract. Mooney refused to pay and Lawaan threatened and warned him that something will
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 knifeBut Borinaga was persistent in his
endeavor, and hardly ten minutes after the first attack, he returned, knife in hand, to renew it, but was
unable to do so because Mooney and Perpetua were then on their guard and turned a flashlight on
Borinaga, frightening him away. Again the same night, Borinaga was overheard stating that he had
missed his mark and was unable to give another blow because of the flashlight. The point of the knife
was subsequently, on examination of the chair, found embedded in it.

Ruling: (DISCUSS)

SC ruled that it was a frustrated murder.

The attendant circumstances conclusively establish that murder was in the heart and mind of the
accused. More than mere menaces took place. The aggressor stated his purpose, which was to kill, and
apologized to his friends for not accomplishing that purpose. A deadly weapon was used. The blow was
directed treacherously toward vital organs of the victim. The means used were entirely suitable for
accomplishment. The crime should, therefore, be qualified as murder because of the presence of the
circumstance of treachery.

The debatable question is whether or not it was frustrated or attempted murder.

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.

CONTENTION:

Our group disagrees with the ruling. We stand that this should have been ruled as attempted murder
and not frustrated murder.
LEGAL BASIS:

1. ART. 6

“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 no produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.”

 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.

2. ART. 6

“There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission 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 his own voluntary desistance.”

ELEMENTS:

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

 Not all acts necessary was performed because accused was not able to stab the victim; he simply
missed the his target

CASES

1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs REGIE LABIAGA (G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013)
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been
fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that the
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the
accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. (WALANG FATAL
WOUND KAY MOONEY)

2. People of the Philippines vs. Sibbu G.R. No. 214757, March 29, 2017

The Court also upheld appellant’s conviction for attempted murder. Appellant commenced the
commission of murder through overt acts such as firing his firearm at the residence of the victims
but did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce murder by reason of some cause
other than his own spontaneous desistance. Appellant simply missed his target. (MISSED DIN UNG
TARGET SA CASE NATIN)

3. LEONIDAS EPIFANIO v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 157057; June 26, 2007

“It must be stressed that it is not the gravity of the wounds alone which determines whether a
felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had passed the subjective phase in the
commission of the offense.”