THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO VILLEGAS Y TULIAO (alias Lucio Villegas and Francisco Bravo), defendant-appellant.; G.R. No. L-34039 January 16, 1931

Indeterminate offense is when the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous.

CRIME: Attempted Robbery

FACTS:

Leoncio Villegas, a recidivist or a habitual criminal, was prosecuted for attempted robbery, The accused, was caught entering the inahabitated house of Miss S.H. Olson, by cutting forcibly and breaking open the screen of a window on the said premise, where the accused was successful to enter. However, was not successful to carry away the things from the house to commence the robbery.

On the trial, the accused, first pleaded not guilty, however on the following day, he changed his pleading and pleaded guilty, but not on the act of attempted robbery, but of trespassing.

The Trial Court found him guilty of the said crime, and being a habitual delinquent, he was given a penalty under the Act No. 3586 of the Philippine Legislature.

COURT’s DECISION:

The court affirmed the decision of the RTC, convicting the accused of attempted robbery.

ISSUE/s:

(1)    Whether or not the accused was guilty of attempted robbery.

(2)    Whether or not the punishment of Act 3586 of the Philippine Legislature should take  effect on this case.

HELD:

(1)   Yes. The accused was guilty of attempted murder, he admitted certain facts on the case, and That part of the information explains the defendant's intent of gain, setting forth as facts that he proposed to take, steal, and carry away by means of force upon things, personal property valued at P1,000 contained in the dwelling house, and that if he failed to accomplish said purpose, it was not because of his own voluntary desistance, but because of the timely detection and intervention by third persons who caused the arrest of said accused.

(2)   YES. it is not necessary that the former felonies constituting the habitual criminality have been committed after the law regarding habitual criminals took effect; it is sufficient that the crime, the prosecution of which gives rise to the application of the additional penalty for habitual criminality, has been committed after said law became effective.