Article 4. Criminal Liability - Proximate Cause Doctrine and Impossible Crime

Question 1

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

Answer 1

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different
   from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
   property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Question 2

Elements of Art. 4, 1st par.

Answer 2

1. the intended act is a felonious act
2. the resulting act is a felony
3. the resulting felony is the direct, natural logical consequence of the offender’s felonious act

Question 3

Proximate Cause

Answer 3

● Sets into motion all other causes and which, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the felony, without which the felony would not have resulted.
● It is necessary that there is no efficient intervening cause that would have broken the causal connection between the offender’s felonious act and the resulting felony. The offender will not become criminally liable for the felony if there is an efficient intervening cause.

Question 4

Efficient Intervening Cause

Answer 4

An active cause which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. It is not in any way connected with the offender’s felonious act.

Question 5

Aberratio Ictus - (Mistake in the Blow)

Answer 5

A situation wherein the offender directed the blow against his intended victim but
because of poor aim, the blow landed on another person.

Will result in two crimes – first, the crime against the intended victim, and second, the crime against the actual victim.

Question 6

Error in Personae - (Mistake in the Identity)

Answer 6

Offender directed the blow at a person whom he thought to be the intended victim, but the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. He has mistaken the actual victim to be the intended victim.

Question 7

Praeter Intentionem - (Consequence went beyond the intention)

Answer 7

Elements of Praeter Intentionem:
1.That the felony has been committed; and
2.That there is a notable disparity between the offender’s felonious act and
resulting act.

Question 8

Article 4, Paragraph 2 - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

Answer 8

By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Question 9

Impossible Crime

Answer 9

● Act done would have amounted to crime against persons or crimes against property but is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility because of the employment of ineffectual or inadequate means.
● An impossible crime is indeed not a crime. The act is not accomplished, the act did not produce a crime. There is an inherent impossibility for the act to consummate into a crime.

Question 10

Impossible Crime
(Elements)

Answer 10

1. The act done had it been accomplished would have amounted crime against person or crime against property
2. The act was done with evil intent
3. The act was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
4. The act done does not fall under any other provision under of the RPC

Question 11

Two Kinds of Inherent Responsibility

Answer 11

Legal Impossibility. There is legal impossibility when all the intended acts, even if accomplished, will not produce a crime.

Physical or factual impossibility. When extraneous circumstances unknown to the
offender, extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the offender, prevented the consummation of the crime.