Title One: Felonies and Circumstances which affect criminal liability Flashcards
CHAPTER 1
FELONIES
State Article 3
ARTICLE 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Differentiate felonies, offense, misdemeanor, and crime
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE, MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
FELONY – refers onl y to violations of the Revised Penal Code.
(a) A crime punishable under a special law is not
referred to as a felony. “Crime” or “offense” is the
proper term.
(b) Importance: There are certain provisions in the
RPC where the term “felony” is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws.
OFFENSE – A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory offense.
MISDEMEANOR –A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance.
CRIME –Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word “crime” can be used.
Elements of Felonies
ELEMENTS:
- there must be an act or omission
- this must be punishable by the RPC
- act or omission was done by means of dolo or culpa
Meaning of omission
- Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law
- Omission– It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.
- Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
(3) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in
prosecution of offenses.
(4) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
(5) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim.
(6) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor
HOW felonies are committed?
FELONIES: HOW COMMITTED
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. [Art. 3, RPC]
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) – It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the part ofthe person causing injury to another. Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.
(a) Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of
intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense in culpable felonies, where there is no intent to consider.
(b) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
Requisites:
(1) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
(2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
(3) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.[People v. Oanis (1993)]
However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257),because the police officers were at fault when they shot the escaped convict who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that killing the former would be justified)
- CASE:
US v. Ah Chong (1910): A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide.
(1) Would the stabbing be lawful if the facts were really what the houseboy believed? Yes. If it was really the robber and not the roommate then the houseboy was justified.
(2) Was the houseboy’s intention lawful? Yes. He was acting out of self-preservation.
(3) Was the houseboy without fault or negligence? Yes. His deliberate intent to defend himself with the knife can be determined by the fact that he cried out sufficient warnings prior to the act.
Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led him to take the facts as they appear to him and was pressed to take immediate action.
What are the classification of felonies?
What is the purpose of classifying penalties?
Is stages (Art.6) apply to all kinds of felonies?
Are there felonies which do not admit of division?
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Felonies are classified as follows: (MSG)
(1) According to the manner of their commission/According To The Means By Which They Are Committed
(2) According to the stages of their execution
(3) According to their gravity
Other classifications:
(4) As to count
(5) As to nature
- The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.
- The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity.
(1) The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all kinds of felonies.
(2) There are felonies which do not admit of division.
Classification of Felonies According to the manner of their commission/According To The Means By Which They Are Committed
Classification of Felonies According to the manner of their commission/According To The Means By Which They Are Committed
- According to the Manner of Their Commission Under Art. 3, they are classified as:
(a) Intentional felonies – those committed with deliberate intent; and
(b) Culpable felonies – those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
- Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By Which They Are Committed:
1. Intentional Felonies- by means of deceit (dolo)
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent.
MISTAKE OF FACT – misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
Requisites:
a. the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be intention is lawful
b. mistake must be without fault or carelessness by the accused
- Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa) Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. negligence (lack of foresight) and imprudence (lack of skill)
Classification According to the Stages of Their Execution
Classification According to the Stages of Their Execution Under Art. 6, they are classified as:(AFC)
(a) Attempted
(b) Frustrated
(c) Consummated
* STAGES OF EXECUTION CLASSIFICATION UNDER ART. 6:
(1) Consummated Felony – When all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; the felony is produced.
(2) FrustratedFelony–Whentheoffenderperforms
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.
(3) Attempted Felony – 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.
Note: The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 is true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages.
- Related to this, classification of felonies as to:
- (a) Formal Crimes: Crimes which are consummated in one instance.
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under Art. 213
- (a) Formal Crimes: Crimes which are consummated in one instance.
Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not.
(b) Material Felonies: crimes that have various stages of execution
(c) Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no attempted stage.
(d) Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED STAGE: the essence of the crime is the act itself.
(a) Rape – the slightest penetration already consummates the crime
(b) Arson – the slightest burning already renders the crime complete.
(c) Theft –“free disposition of the items stolen” is not in any way determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. [Valenzuela vs. People (2007)]
Classification of Felonies According to their Gravity
According to Their Gravity
Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
(a) Grave felonies – those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive;
(i) Reclusionperpetua
(ii) Reclusion temporal
(iii) Perpetual or Absolute DQ
(iv) Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
(v) Prision mayor
(vi) Fine more than P6,000
(b) Less grave felonies– those to which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period is correctional;
(i) Prision correccional
(ii) Arresto mayor
(iii) Suspension
(iv) Destierro
(v) Fines equal to or more than P200
(c) Light felonies– those infractions of law for the commission of which(i) the penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not exceeding P200, or both.
* Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?
(1) To determine
(a) whether these felonies can be complexed or not;
(b) the prescription of the crime and
(c) the prescription of the penalty.
(2) In other words, these are felonies classified
according to their gravity, stages and the penalty attached to them.
(a) Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
(b) Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with Art. 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Art. 26 that was not applied.
(c) This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of crimes.
(d) If the penalty is a fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Art. 9. If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a correctional penalty under Art. 26, hence a less grave penalty.
(e) If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26(with respect to prescription of penalties). It is considered as a correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.
Classification of Felonies As to Count
As to Count
Plurality of crimes may be in the form of:
(a) Compound Crime,
(b) Complex crime; and
(c) Composite crime.
Classification of Felonies As to Nature
As to Nature
(a) Mala in se
(b) Mala prohibita
State Article 4
ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
- By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
- 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
* Since in Article 3, a felony is an act or omission punishable by law, particularly the Revised Penal Code, it follows that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability. In paragraph 1 of Article 4, the law uses the word “felony,” that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability. A felony may arise not only when it is intended, but also when it is the product of criminal negligence. What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4 confusing is the addition of the qualifier “although the wrongful act be different from what he intended.”
Fill in the Blanks
ARTICLE 4. _________ Liability. — Criminal liability _____ be_______:
- By any______ committing a_______ (delito) although the________ act_______ be_______ from_______ which he_______.
- By any________ performing an_______ which would be an_______ against_______ or________, were it_______ for the________________ of its________ or on account of the employment of_________ or ineffectual________.
ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
- By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
- 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Elements of Felonies:
(1) There must be an act or omission (actus reus/physical act)
Act: Any kind of body movement which tends to produce some effect in the external world; includes possession.
Omission: The failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do under the law.
(2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC.
It is important that there is a law requiring the performance of an act; if there is no positive duty, there is no liability.
(3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
DOLO DISCUSSION
DOLO
- Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred to as criminal intent, and must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part of the offender as to the act done by him.
- Intentional Felonies – The act or omission is performed or incurred with deliberate intent (with malice) to cause an injury to another.
- Requisites:
- Freedom
(a) Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the act or omission.
(b) If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability (i.e., presence of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear) - Intelligence
(a) Capacity to know and understand the
consequences of one’s act.
(b) This power is necessary to determine the morality of human acts, the lack of which leads to non-existence of a crime.
(c) If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability. (i.e., offender is an imbecile, insane or under 15 years of age)
3. Criminal Intent
(a) The purpose to use a particular means to effect a result.
(b) The intent to commit an act with malice, being purely a mental state, is presumed (but only if the act committed is unlawful).Such presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act.
(c) However, in some crimes, intent cannot be presumed being an integral element thereof; so it has to be proven.
(d) Example: In frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not presumed but must be proven; otherwise it is merely physical injuries
(e) Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
(f) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie. [U.S. v. Apostol]
(g) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the commission of a felonious act. [People v. Oanis]
(h) Mens rea: “A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 889]
- Note: If any of the elements is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no intentional felony. [Visbal vs. Buban (2003)]
- LIABILITY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT
Exception to the requirement of criminal intent: (a) Felonies committed by CULPA.
(b) Offenses MALA PROHIBITA.
- CATEGORIES OF CRIMINAL INTENT (GENERAL VS. SPECIFIC INTENT)
(a) The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense; such absence must be proved by the accused.
(b) Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the State just as any other essential element.
(c) This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused
(d) In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is required.
(e) In certain crimes against property, there must be intent to gain (Art. 293 – robbery, Art 308 – theft).
(f) Intent to kill is essential in attempted and frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art 249), as well as in murder.
(g) In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of lewd designs must be proved.
CULPA DISCUSSION
CULPA
- Culpa – The act or omission is not malicious; the injury caused being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
(a) Although there is no intentional felony, there could be culpable felony.
(b) The element of criminal intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. - Requisites:
(1) Freedom
(2) Intelligence
(3) Negligence,imprudence, lack of reckless foresight or lack of skill - Is culpa merely a mode of committing a crime or a crime in itself?
(a) AS A MODE
Under Art. 3, it is clear that culpa is just a modality by which a felony may be committed.
CASE: People vs. Faller (1939): It was stated indirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is just a mode of incurring criminal liability. In this case, the accused was charged with malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an intentional negligence under Article 327. Thus, there is no malicious mischief through simple negligence or reckless imprudence because it requires deliberateness.The Supreme Court pointed out that although the allegation in the information charged the accused with an intentional felony, yet the words feloniously and unlawfully, which are standard languages in an information, covers not only dolo but also culpa because culpa is just a mode of committing a felony.
(b) AS A CRIME
In Art. 365, criminal negligence is an omission which the article specifically penalizes.The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. Art. 365 creates a distinction between imprudence and negligence; simple or reckless, one might think that criminal negligence is the one being punished.
- CASE:
People v. Buan (1968): The accused was driving a passenger bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter.
A case was filed against the accused for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence for which he was tried and acquitted.
Prior to his acquittal, a case for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence was filed.
Accused claimed that he was placed in twice in jeopardy.
The second case must be dismissed.
(a) Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for the same act.
(b) For the essence of the quasi-offense under Art.
365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent act which would be punishable as a felony.
(c) The law penalizes the negligent act and not the result.
(d) The gravity of the consequences is only taken into account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the substance of the offense.
As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
- Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception, failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
- Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury toperson or damage to property. Usually involves lack of skill.
- Reason for punishing acts of negligence or imprudence: A man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent.
DOCTRINES CONCERNING CULPABLE CRIMES:
- *(1) EmergencyRule**
(a) A person who is confronted with a sudden
emergency may be left no time for thought so he must make a speedy decision based largely upon impulse or instinct.
(b)Importance: cannot be held to the same conduct as one who has had an opportunity to reflect, even though it later appears that he made the wrong decision
- *(2) Doctrine Of “Last Clear Chance”**
(a) The contributory negligence of the
party injured will NOT defeat the action if it be shown that the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.
(b) Last Clear Chance is a defense by the defendant in a damage suit against liability by transferring it to the plaintiff.
(c) Except: The doctrine is not applicable in criminal cases because the liability is penal in nature and thus liability cannot be transferred to the other party. [Anuran v. Buno (1966)]
(d) It is not a case between two parties involved in an incident but rather between an individual and the State.
- *(3) Rule Of Negative Ingredient**
(a) This is related to the doctrine of proximate cause and applicable when certain causes leading to the result are not identifiable.
(b) This rule states that:
(1) The prosecution must first identify what the accused failed to do.
(2) Once this is done, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused.
(3) The accused must show that the failure did not set in motion the chain of events leading to the injury [Carillo v. People].
What is the meaning of Par. 1 of Article 4
- What are the requisites of Par. 1?
- Since he is still motivated by criminal intent, what is the three things that the offender is criminally liable in?
- What is Proximate Cause?
Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony committed different from that intended to be committed
Requisites:
- felony has been committed intentionally
- injury or damage done to the other party is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
- Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal intent, the offender is criminally liable in:
- Error in personae – mistake in identity
- Abberatio ictus – mistake in blow
- Praetor intentionem – lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
- PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, without which the result would not have occurred. Proximate cause – Suicide is not a felony within the meaning of Article 4 of RPC; hence, a pregnant woman who attempted to commit suicide is not liable for abortion due to the consequent death of the infant. Vexatious act (e.g. pouring gasoline) made as part of fun making is not felony within the contemplation of Article 4. The accused is not liable for homicide. However, such act is considered as culpable, and thus, he is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (People vs. Pugay, No 74324, November 17, 1988). Vexatious act made out of hate (such as putting a robber snake inside the bag of the victim) is unjust vexation, which is a felony within the contemplation of Article 4. The accused is liable for homicide if the victim died due to heart attack caused by seeing a snake in his bag.
What makes the first paragraph of Article 4 confusing?
Wrongful act done be different from what was intended
What makes the first paragraph of Article 4 confusing is the qualification “although the wrongful act done be different from what was intended.” There are three situations contemplated under paragraph 1 of Article 4:
- Aberratio ictus or mistake in blow;
- Error in personae or mistake in identity;
- Praeter intentionem or where the consequence exceeded the intention.
- WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx.
When a person commits a felony with malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious act.
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).
Requisites:
(1) Anintentionalfelonyhasbeencommitted.
(a) The felony committed should be one committed by means of dolo (with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
(i) the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC,
(ii) the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender.
WHOLE DISCUSSION OF PAR.1 of ART 4
PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V. REMOTE CAUSE
- Proximate cause – see definition above.
- Immediate cause – The last event in a chain of events, though not necessarily the proximate cause of what follows.
- Remote cause – A cause that does not necessarily or immediately produce an event or injury.
Note: Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reus.
Criminal liability for some felonies arises only upon a specific resulting harm:
(1) Homicide and its qualified forms requires DEATH
of the victim to be consummated.
(2) Estafa: requires that the victim incur damage for
criminal liability for the consummated felony to arise.
General rule: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended in the following cases:
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period)
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act is a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period)
(a) There is only one subject.
(b) The intended subject is a different subject, but the felony is still the same.
(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance)If A’s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim praeter intentionem.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an efficient intervening cause or an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease. [People v. Illustre]
(2) The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor’s orders, because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted on the accused. [People v. Almonte]
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such (a) the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. [People v. Buhay and People v. Valdez]
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person. [U.S. v. Marasigan]
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. [People v. Moldes]
PROXIMATE CAUSE DISCUSSION
Proximate cause
- Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act.
- Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony and without which such felony could not have resulted. He who is the cause of the cause is the evil of the cause. As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.
- Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along Ortigas Ave. A’s car was ahead, followed by those of B, C, D, and E. When A’s car reached the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A immediately stepped on his break, followed by B, C, and D.
However, E was not aware that the traffic light had turned to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car of A. In this case, the immediate cause of the damagetothecarofAisthecarofB,butthatisnotthe proximate cause. The proximate cause is the car of E because it was the care of E which sets into motion the cars to bump into each other.
In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-law, had a quarrel. At the height of their quarrel, A shot B with an airgun. B was hit at the stomach, which bled profusely. When A saw this, he put B on the bed and told him not to leave because he will call a doctor. While A was away, B rose from the bed, went into the kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut his throat. The doctor arrived and said that the wound in the stomach is only superficial; only that it is a bleeder, but the doctor could no longer save him because B’s throat was already cut. Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for manslaughter. The Supreme Court rationalized that what made B cut his throat, in the absence of evidence that he wanted to commit suicide, is the belief that sooner or later, he would die out of the wound inflicted by A. Because of that belief, he decided to shorten the agony by cutting his throat. That belief would not be engendered in his mind were it not because of the profuse bleeding from his wound. Now, that profusely bleeding wound would not have been there, were it not for the wound inflicted by A. As a result, A was convicted for manslaughter.
In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death that victim. In one decision, the Supreme Court held that the most precious moment in a man’s life is that of the losing seconds when he is about to die. So when you robbed him of that, you should be liable for his death. Even if a person is already dying, if one suffocates him to end up his agony, one will be liable for murder, when you put him to death, in a situation where he is utterly defenseless.
In US vs. Valdez, the deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in charge of the crewmembers engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel. Because the offended party was slow in his work, the accused shouted at him. The offended party replied that they would be better if he would not insult them. The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him. The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril threw himself into the water. The victim died of drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide. His contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this can be considered as a supervening cause. It was held that the deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation, and was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the same. The accused must, therefore, be considered the author of the death of the victim.
This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself.
If a person shouted fire, and because of that a moviegoer jumped into the fire escape and died, the person who shouted fire when there is no fire is criminally liable for the death of that person.
In a case wherea wife had to go out to the cold to escape a brutal husband and because of that she was exposed to the elements and caught pneumonia, the husband was made criminally liable for the death of the wife.
Even though the attending physician may have been negligent and the negligence brought about the death of the offended party—in other words, if the treatment was not negligent, the offended party would have survived—is no defense at all, because without the wound inflicted by the offender, there would have been no occasion for a medical treatment.
Even if the wound was called slight but because of the careless treatment, it was aggravated, the offender is liable for the death of the victim and not only for the slight physical injuries. The reason for this is that without the infliction of the injury, there would have been no need for any medical treatment. That the medical treatment proved to be careless or negligent, is not enough to relieve the offender of the liability for the inflicted injuries.
When a person inflicted a wound upon another, and his victim upon coming home got some leaves, pounded them and put lime there, and applying this to the wound, developed locked jaw and eventually died, it was held that the one who inflicted the wound is liable for the death.
In another instance, during a quarrel, the victim was wounded. The wound was superficial, but just the same the doctor put inside some packing. When the victim went home, he could not stand the pain, so he pulled out the packing. That resulted into profuse bleeding and he died because of loss of blood. The offender who caused the wound, although the wound caused was only slight, was held answerable for the death of the victim, even if the victim would not have died were it not for the fact that he pulled out that packing. The principle is that without the wound, the act of the physician or the act of the offended party would not have anything to do with the wound, and since the wound was inflicted by the offender, whatever happens on that wound, he should be made punishable for that.
In Urbano vs. IAC, A and B had a quarrel and started hacking each other. B was wounded at the back. Cooler heads intervened and they were separated. Somehow, their differences were patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also whatever loss of income B may have suffered. B, on the other hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A. After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced that the wound was already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two months later, B came home and was chilling. Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A. The Supreme Court held that A is not liable. It took into account the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence were presented that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted two months. What brought about the tetanus to infect his body was his work in the farm using his bare hands. Because of this, the Supreme Court said that the act of B working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using is own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of B. A, if at all, is only liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon B.
If you are confronted with these facts of the Urbano case, where the offended party died because of tetanus poisoning reason out according to the reasoning laid down by the Supreme Court, meaning to say, the incubation period of the tetanus poisoning was considered. Since tetanus toxic would affect the victim for no longer than two weeks, the fact that the victim died two months later shows that it is no longer tetanus brought about by the act of the accused. The tetanus was gathered by his working in the farm and that is already an efficient intervening cause. The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
- Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.
The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. [Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)]
QUESTION AND ANSWERS REGARDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- A man thought of committing suicide and went on top of a tall building. He jumped, landing on somebody else, who died instantly. Is he criminally liable?
- A had been courting X for the last five years. X told A, “Let us just be friends. I want a lawyer for a husband and I have already found somebody whom I agreed to marry. Anyway, there are still a lot of ladies around; you will still have your chance with another lady.” A, trying to show that he is a sport, went down from the house of X, went inside his car, and stepped on the accelerator to the limit, closed his eyes, started the vehicle. The vehicle zoomed, running over all pedestrians on the street. At the end, the car stopped at the fence. He was taken to the hospital, and he survived. Can he be held criminally liable for all those innocent people that he ran over, claiming that he was committing suicide?
- A pregnant woman thought of killing herself by climbing up a tall building and jumped down below. Instead of falling in the pavement, she fell on the owner of the building. An abortion resulted. Is she liable for an unintentional abortion? If not, what possible crime may have been committed?
- Yes. A felony may result not only from dolo but also from culpa. If that fellow who was committing suicide acted
- He will be criminally liable, not for an intentional felony, but for culpable felony. This is so because, in paragraph 1 of Article 4, the term used is “felony,” and that term covers both dolo and culpa.
- The relevant matter is whether the pregnant woman could commit unintentional abortion upon herself. The answer is no because the way the law defines unintentional abortion, it requires physical violence coming from a third party. When a pregnant woman does an act that would bring about abortion, it is always intentional. Unintentional abortion can only result when a third person employs physical violence upon a pregnant woman resulting to an unintended abortion.
In one case, a pregnant woman and man quarreled. The man could no longer bear the shouting of the woman, so he got his firearm and poked it into the mouth of the woman. The woman became hysterical, so she ran as fast as she could, which resulted in an abortion. The man was prosecuted for unintentional abortion. It was held that an unintentional abortion was not committed. However, drawing a weapon in the height of a quarrel is a crime under light threats under Art. 285. An unintentional abortion can only be committed out of physical violence, not from mere threat.
Q: A aroused the ire of her husband, B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A’s pains, she died of a heart attack. It turned out she was suffering from a heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
A: Parricide. Although A died of a heart attack, the said attack was generated by B’s felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened A’s death. Even though B had no intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. B. however, may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intent to commit so grave a wrong (Art. 13(3), RPC).
Q: On his way home from the office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death.
Is XX liable for ZZ’s death? Explain briefly.
A (Suggested): Yes, XX is liable for ZZ’s death because his acts of pulling a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ’s jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter’s death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural and logicalconsequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1036).
Aberratio ictus
- Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personaewhere the victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime.
- Q:The facts were one of aberratio ictus, but the facts stated that the offender aimed carelessly in firing the shot. Is the felony the result of dolo or culpa? What crime was committed?
Aberratio ictus
- In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on someone else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
- Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because the legal effects are not the same.
In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. To be more specific, let us take for example A and B.AandBareenemies.AssoonasAsawBatthe distance, A shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was not B who was hit but C. You can readily see that there is only one single act—the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned, the crime at least is attempted homicide or attempted murder, as the case may be, if there is any qualifying circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C were killed, the crime is homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only physical injuries. You cannot have attempted or frustrated homicide or murder as far as C is concerned, because as far as he is concerned, there is no intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only physical injuries— serious or less serious or slight.
If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex; you will have one prosecution for the attempted homicide or murder, and another prosecution for slight physical injuries for the innocent party. But if the innocent party was seriously injured or less seriously injured, then you have another grave or less grave felony resulting from the same act which gave rise to attempted homicide or murder against B; hence, a complex crime.
In other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period. This is the legal effect. The only time when a complex crime may not result in aberratio ictus is when one of the resulting felonies is a light felony.
- A:All three instances under paragraph 1, Article 4 are the product of dolo. In aberratio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem, never think of these as the product of culpa. They are always the result of an intended felony, and, hence dolo. You cannot have these situations out of criminal negligence. The crime committed is attempted homicide or attempted murder, not homicide through reckless imprudence.
Error in personae
Relate Article 49 to Error in personae
Error in personae
- In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. There was really a mistake in identity.
- This is very important because Article 49 applies only in a case of error in personae and not in a case of aberratio ictus.
- In Article 49, when the crime intended is more serious than the crime actually committed or vice versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will be the one imposed. But it will be imposed in the maximum period. For instance, the offender intended to commit homicide, but what was actually committed was parricide because the person killed by mistake was somebody related to him within the degree of relationship in parricide. In such a case, the offender will be charged with
parricide, but the penalty that would be imposed will be that of homicide. This is because under Article 49, the penalty for the lesser crime will be the one imposed, whatever crime the offender is prosecuted under. In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.
Illustrations:
A thought of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner where B usually passes. When a figure resembling B was approaching, A hid and when that figure was near him, he suddenly hit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing him. But it turned out that it was his own father. The crime committed is parricide, although what was intended was homicide. Article 49, therefore, will apply because out of a mistake in identity, a crime was committed different from that which was intended.
In another instance, A thought of killing B. Instead of B, C passed. A thought that he was B, so he hit C on the neck, killing the latter. Just the same the crime intended to be committed is homicide and what was committed is actually homicide, Article 49 does not apply. Here, error in personae is of no effect.
How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in personae is not a mitigating circumstance.
Praeter intentionem Discussion
Praeter intentionem
In People vs. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist blows. The other started to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head. Because the victim was running, he lost balance, fell on the pavement and his head struck the cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo claimed that he had no intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not have talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, that is, “that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.”
This is the consequence of praeter intentionem. In short, praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. If there is no disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, this circumstance cannot be availed of. It cannot be a case of praeter intentionem because the intention ofa person is determined by the means resorted to by him in committing the crime.
Illustrations:
A stabbed his friend when they had a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some argument about a basketball game and they could not agree, so he stabbed him eleven times. His defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It was held that the fact 11 wounds were inflicted on A’s friend is hardly compatible with the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
In another instance, the accused was a homosexual. The victim ridiculed or humiliated him while he was going to the restroom. He was so irritated that he just stabbed the victim at the neck with a lady’s comb with a pointed handle, killing the victim. His defense was that he did not intend to kill him. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing him. The contention was rejected, because of the instrument used was pointed. The part of the body wherein it was directed was the neck which is a vital part of the body. In praeter intentionem, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime.
In still another case, the accused entered the store of a Chinese couple, to commit robbery. They hogtied the Chinaman and his wife. Because the wife was so talkative, one of the offenders got a pan de sal and placed it in her mouth. But because the woman was trying to wiggle from the bondage, the pan de sal slipped through her throat. She died because of suffocation. The offenders were convicted for robbery with homicide because there was a resulting death, although their intention was only to rob. They were given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, “that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” There was really no intention to bring about the killing, because it was the pan de sal that they put into the mouth. Had it been a piece of rag, it would be different. In that case, the Supreme Court gave the offenders the benefit of praeter intentionem as a mitigating circumstance. The means employed is not capable of producing death if only the woman chewed the pan de sal.
A man raped a young girl. The young girl was shouting so the man placed his hand on the mouth and nose of the victim. He found out later that the victim was already dead; she died of suffocation. The offender begged that he had no intention of killing the girl and that his only intention was to prevent her from shouting. The Supreme Court rejected the plea saying that a person who is suffocated may eventually die. Do the offender was prosecuted for the serious crime of rape with homicide and was not given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13.
Differentiating this first case with the case of the Chinaman and his wife, it would seem that the difference lies in the means employed by the offender.
In praeter inentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the act of the offender. If the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply.
For example, if A gave B a karate blow in the throat, there is no praeter intentionem because the blow to the throat can result in death.So also, if A tried to intimidate B by poking a gun at the latter’s back, and B died of cardiac arrest, A will be prosecuted for homicide but will be given the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem.
In Ramos-Andan v. People (2006) the court said that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong may not be availed of when fraud is employed.
What is the meaning of Paragraph 2 of Article 4?
- What are the requisitews of Impossible Crime?
- When does it occurs?
Par. 2 Impossible Crime
Requisites:
- Act would have been an offense against persons or property.
- There was criminal intent.
- Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means are employed.
- Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of special law.
- Impossible crime occurs when there is:
- inherent impossibility to commit the crime
- inadequate means to consummate the crime
- ineffectual means to consummate the crime
- Impossible crime - The crime committed is impossible crime if the offense sought to be committed is factually or legally impossible. Killing a dead person is impossible crime because of legal impossibility. Putting the hand inside an empty pocket with intention to steal a wallet is impossible crime because of factual impossibility (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). Kidnapping for ransom consummates at the precise moment when the victim was abducted. Receiving ransom payment is not an element of this crime. What is important is that the victim was kidnapped for purpose of ransom. Since the crime is already consummated, there is no basis to say that it is impossible to commit this crime (People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 95322) Moreover, kidnapping is a crime against liberty and not against person or property. Firing a gun at the unoccupied bedroom with intention to kill a victim constitutes impossible crime because it is factually impossible to kill a victim, who was not in the bedroom (Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). But throwing grenade at the unoccupied bedroom, where the victim is supposed to be sleeping, constitutes arson if the bedroom was burned as a consequence
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
- PURPOSE OF PUNISHING IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES – is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal
(1) Inherent impossibility: The act intended by the offender is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment.
(2) There must be either:
(a) Legal impossibility –The intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
(i) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
(ii) there is intention to perform the physical act;
(iii) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(iv) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.[Intod v. CA]
(b) Physical or factual impossibility – Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
(3) In the Philippines, impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense but an act penalized in itself.
(4) Since the offender in an impossible crime has already performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime. There is no frustrated impossible crime either, because the acts performed by the offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
- Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep in the nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Was an impossible crime committed?
- A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Because this person was exquisitely dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. When he reached a motel, A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man, and so he pushed him out of the car and gave him fist blows. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there any crime committed at all?
- A entered a department store at about midnight, when it was already closed. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. He succeeded in opening the safe, but the safe was empty. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, what crime was possibly committed?
- A and B were lovers. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. A thought of killing his wife. He prepared her breakfast every morning, and every morning, he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily, she developed a physical condition that rendered her strong and resistant to any kind of poisoning, so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast had no effect on her. Is there an impossible crime?
- Scott and Charles are roommates in a boarding house. Everyday, Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. Charles resented this. One day, he got an electric cord, tied the one end to the door know and plugged the other end to an electric outlet. The idea was that, when Scott comes home to open the doorknob, he would be electrocuted. Unknown to Charles, Scott is working in an electric shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. When Scott opened the doorknob, nothing happened to him. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other end to the doorknob. Was an impossible crime committed?
- A and B are enemies. A, upon seeing B, got the revolver of his father, shot B, but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old, none of them discharged. Was an impossible crime committed?
- A and B are neighbors. They are jealous of each other’s social status. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart, not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. Is A liable for an impossible crime?
Impossible crime
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- ANSWERS
1. Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however, that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code— desecrating the dead.
2. It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness.
Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under the circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.Under Article 4, paragraph 2, impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. It is therefore important to know what are the crimes against Title VIII, against persons and those against property under Title X. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes.
- This is not an impossible crime. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. But in a department store, there is plenty to steal, not only the money inside the vault or safe. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. There are other things that he could take. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery, assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen.
- No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition, the poison would have taken effect. Hence, it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. The crime committed is frustrated parricide.
If it were a case of poisoning, an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. Under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have been realized. But if due to the quantity of the vetsin, sugar or soda, the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized, then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. It would be a case of physical injuries, if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage.
- It is not an impossible crime. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.
- No. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. If they were new, it would have fired. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender, and therefore, an attempted homicide.
But if let us say, when he started squeezing the trigger, he did not realize that the firearm was empty. There was not bullet at all. There is an impossible crime, because under any and all circumstance, an unloaded firearm will never fire.
Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?” Then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If the facts really constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest that an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.
If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime so far by the act done by him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
- No. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime, it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code.
In other words, this idea of an impossible crime is one of last resort, just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code.
If the question is “Is an impossible crime committed?”, the answer is yes, because on the basis of the facts stated, an impossible crime is committed. But to play safe, add another paragraph: However, the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort.
MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
- READ INTOD CASE
MODIFIED CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
- Intod v. CA (1992):
(a) In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening.
(b) It so happened that the intended victim did not come home that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time.
(c) Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder.
(d) CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime.
(e) As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house.
In a way, the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod vs. CA, et. al., 285 SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. Somehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Some asked questions, was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and, thus, unknown to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose, instead of using firearms, the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house, believing that she was there when in fact she was not, would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime?
* Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act, which would have constituted a crime against persons or property, could not and did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended, the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:
Article 4. Criminal liability—Criminal liability shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony, but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property, the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted form the wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender”(Article 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property.
- There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is, where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy or duplicity would be perpetrated.
In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. But whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court has spoken, we have to respect its ruling.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT, DISCERNMENT AND MOTIVE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENT, DISCERNMENT AND MOTIVE
- Intent – is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It establishes the nature and extent of culpability in intentional felonies.
- Discernment – is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It is integral to the element of intelligence, NOT intent.
- Motive – it is the moving power which impels one to do an act (ex. vengeance). Generally, it is not an essential element of a crime; hence, it need not be proved for purposes of conviction (except in certain cases enumerated below).
WHEN MOTIVE BECOMES MATERIAL IN DETERMINING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(1) When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno (1993)])
(2) When there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant.
(3) When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the crime.
(4) When the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive and not free from doubt.
(5) When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons.
(6) When the evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial.
(a) Lack of motive can aid in achieving acquittal of the accused, especially where there is doubt as to the identity of the accused. [People v. Hassan (1988)]
(b) Proof of motive is not indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his participation is adequately established. [People v. Delos Santos]
(c) In the crime of murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the accused had committed it. [People vs. Galano]
Note: Discernment does not indicate the presence of intent, merely intelligence [People v. Cordova (1993)]. Thus, discernment is necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa.
WHAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRIME?
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
(1) INTERNAL ACTS
(2) EXTERNALACTS
(a) Preparatory Acts
- Acts tending toward the crime.
- Ordinarily not punished except when considered by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of picklocks)
- Proposal and conspiracy to commit a felony are not punishable except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies.
- These acts do not yet constitute even the first stage of the acts of execution.
- Intent not yet disclosed.
- Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen to get a knife.
(b) Acts of Execution
- Usually overt acts with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense.
- Punishable under the RPC.
- Illustration: Ernie stabs Bert
- *A commission of the felony is deemed commenced when the following are present:**
(1) There are external acts.
(2) Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
WHAT IS INDETERMINATE OFFENSE?
Indeterminate Offense – It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its
