Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Us Vs Eduave

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    67 views2 pages
    Eduave attacked the victim from behind with a bolo, creating an 8.5 inch long wound. He did this because the victim had criminally charged him with rape. Eduave admitted to killing the victim. The court had to determine if he should be convicted of frustrated or attempted murder. The ruling was that Eduave should be convicted of frustrated murder. For a crime to be frustrated, the offender must perform all acts that would result in the felony, but it does not result due to causes independent of the offender's will. Here, Eduave did all the acts that should have resulted in murder, but the victim did not die due to causes beyond Eduave's control, making it a frustrated felony rather than an

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Us vs Eduave

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Eduave attacked the victim from behind with a bolo, creating an 8.5 inch long wound. He did this because the victim had criminally charged him with rape. Eduave admitted to killing the victim. The court had to determine if he should be convicted of frustrated or attempted murder. The ruling was that Eduave should be convicted of frustrated murder. For a crime to be frustrated, the offender must perform all acts that would result in the felony, but it does not result due to causes independent of the offender's will. Here, Eduave did all the acts that should have resulted in murder, but the victim did not die due to causes beyond Eduave's control, making it a frustrated felony rather than an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views2 pages

    Us Vs Eduave

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    Eduave attacked the victim from behind with a bolo, creating an 8.5 inch long wound. He did this because the victim had criminally charged him with rape. Eduave admitted to killing the victim. The court had to determine if he should be convicted of frustrated or attempted murder. The ruling was that Eduave should be convicted of frustrated murder. For a crime to be frustrated, the offender must perform all acts that would result in the felony, but it does not result due to causes independent of the offender's will. Here, Eduave did all the acts that should have resulted in murder, but the victim did not die due to causes beyond Eduave's control, making it a frustrated felony rather than an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee vs.

    PROTASIO EDUAVE, defendant-appellant


    GR No. L-12155; February 2, 1917

    ARTICLE 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies. — Consummated felonies, as


    well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
    A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
    accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
    execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
    produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
    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.
    FACTS:
    Defendant Protasio Eduave, who was the querido of the victim’s mother, attacked the victim
    from behind using a bolo creating a gash of 8 and a half inches long and 2 inches deep.
    The motive of the crime was that the accused was incensed at the girl for the reason that she
    had charged him criminally before the local officials with having raped her 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 committed.
    There was no question that defendant was guilty because he gave himself up and he declared
    that he had killed the complainant.
    The only dilemma is the precise crime of which he should be convicted.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not accused should be convicted of frustrated murder or attempted murder.

    RULING:
    Yes, accused should be convicted of frustrated murder.
    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. (See Art 3, Revise Penal Code)
    The essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the latter,
    there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the
    commission of the crime and the moment all of the acts have been performed which should
    result in the consummated crime. While in the former there is such intervention and the offender
    does not arrive at the point of performing all the acts which should produce the crime.
    In case of an attempt, the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. He is
    interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes before the subjective
    phase is passed.
    In case of frustrated crimes, the subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively, the crime
    is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he was passing through the subjective
    phase. The crime, however, is not consummated by reason of the causes independent of the
    will of the offender. He did all that was necessary to commit the crime. If the crime did not result
    as a consequence it was due to something beyond his control.
    That the case before us is frustrated is clear.
    The penalty should have been thirteen years of cadena temporal there being neither
    aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed with
    costs.

    You might also like