Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
digest
consti2Full description
salazar v peopleFull description
people vs durango case digestFull description
Search and Seizures, Search Warrant can be severed.Full description
Full description
political law - double jeopardyFull description
Digest in Crim 2
Constitutional Law Bill of RightsFull description
CRIMCRIM
CaseFull description
Lumauig v. People - G.R. No. 166680 (July 7, 2014) Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render AccountsFull description
G.R. No. 137405Full description
Digest of Comerciante v. PeopleFull description
People vs. Borinaga Facts: The victim Harry Mooney, an American who resided in Calubian Leyte, contracted with Juan Lawaan for the the construction of a fish corral. 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 m inutes, he returned to have another attempt at Mooney M ooney 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: Held: YES. As an essential condition of a frustrated frustrated crime, Borinaga performed 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 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 c hair 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.
