(33-A) PH Vs Caballero
(33-A) PH Vs Caballero
Facts:
*Note, DON’T WRITE, the case has 3 victims, but the digest will only focus on victim 2 since the
topic is about frustrated murder.
Victim 1 – Eugene Tayactac, Victim 2 – Arnold Barcuma, Victim 3 – Leonilo Brocee
As Arnold Barcuma (Victim 2) saw the assault of Eugene Tayactac (Victim 1) by Armando,
Ricardo, Marciano and Robito all surnamed Caballero (Accused). He rushed to the scene to
pacify the accused; however, he was also stabbed by the four accused. Arnold fled for his life
and hid under the house of a neighbor. The commotion only ended after the landlord of the
compound had pacify the Caballero Brothers.
The victims were rushed to the hospital, but only Arnold had survived due to the timely medical
intervention.
Three brothers invoked the defenses of denial and alibi, while Robito had fled and remained at-
large. The Cabellero Brothers were found guilty by the trial court and charged with 2 counts of
murder and frustrated murder.
Held: Yes, appellants were punishable of frustrated murder. Under Article 6, first paragraph of
the Revised Penal Code:
“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”
Thus, Cabellero Brothers, who consummated and executed all the elements necessary for the
crime, almost killed Armando, if not for the timely medical intervention which is independent of
the will of the perpetrator, were guilty of frustrated murder.