1

Criminal Law I

Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal
liability shall be incurred:

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.


Application of Art 4
Criminal liability incurred by any
person in the case mentioned in
the two paragraphs
No reference to manner criminal
liability is incurred
Performing or failing to do an
act, when either is punished by
law, by means of deceit or fault.
One who commits an intentional
felony is responsible for all the
consequences, which naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether
foreseen or intended, or not.
When a person commits a felony
with malice he intends the
consequences of his felonious
acts
there are cases when the
consequences are not intended by
him
wrongful act done different
from which he intended
CRIMINALLY LIABLE
although consequence are not
intended by him
Ex. death of 6-year-old girl who
was to be raped but instead hit
her head on the pavement, which
caused her death.
Not relieved from criminal
liability for the natural
consequences of his act
Rationale of Rule:
Doctrine of El que es cuasa
de la causa es causa del mal
causado(he who is the cause
of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused)
Important words and phrases of
Par 1 of Art. 4
1. Committing a felony
Criminal liability is incurred by
the person
Felony act or omission
punishable by RPC. If not is not
a felony.
Offense must be dolo or w/
malice
There is intention intended
Wrongful act results from I, N,
LF, LS = Art. 365 (criminal
negligence)
Act or omission should not be
punishable by special laws (may
not have the intent to do an injury
to another)
Par. 1 not applicable in this case
Defendant not a regular
medical practitioner committed
injury to another
Still liable even if there are no
intention to cause evil. Accused
liable for injuries thru
imprudence and illegal practice
of medicine.
When a person has not committed a
felony, he is not criminally liable
for the result, which is not
intended.
Out of curiosity one snatched a
bolo the offended instinctively
caught the blade.
One who tries to retain the
possession oh his bolo
Ex. People vs Bindoy in a tuba
wine shop the accused offered
the wife of Paca but refused to
drink having already done so,
accused threatened to injure her
if she would not accept.
Emigdio Omamdam attracted
by the attention Held: accused
should be acquitted b/c he did not
injure Omamdam deliberately,
his conduct is perfectly legal.
Note: On the contrary if accused
has a deliberate intent to injure
Pacas but instead cause the death
of Omamdan then he will be
committing homicide.
2. Although the wrongful act be
different from that which he
intended
a. Error in personae mistake
in identity
b. Aberattio ictus mistake in
the blow
c. Praeter intentionem
injurious result is greater than
that intended
Ex. People vs. Mabug- at
accused and Juana Buralo were
sweethearts and one day the
accused invited Juana to take a

2
walk with him but the latter
refused on the account of the
accused having frequently visited
the house of another woman.
Accused shot Juana but instead
shot Perfecta who did not die due
to proper med attention.
Held: Mabug- at is guilty of
frustrated murder, qualified by
treachery
People vs Tomotorgo (wife died
because she was hit by a piece of
wood)
People vs Monleon (maltreatment
of the accused on his wife was the
proximate cause of her death- son
did not feed carabao so he was
infuriated)
Requisites of Par. 1
I ntentional felony has been
committed
Wrong done be the natural,
direct and logical consequence
That a felony has been committed
People vs Bindoy and U.S. vs
Villanueva were not held
criminally liable because they
were not committing a felony
when they caused an injury to
another.
No felony is committed:
a. Act or omission not
punishable by RPC (ex.
attempting to commit
suicide, self- defense,
policeman in duty)
b. Act covered by justifying
circumstances
Ex. People vs Salinas
Saturnino Salinas,
Crisanto Salinas,
Francisco Salinas
together with Tony and
Omong went to Severino
Aquino to get their horses
w/c the latter caught for
destroying his corn
plants. Death of baby
Jaime Tibule
Held: accepted rule is that
the offender is liable for
his act even though he did
not intend it .
Any person who creates in
anothers mind an immediate
sense of danger, which causes the
latter to do something resulting in
the latters injuries, is liable for the
resulting injuries.
Wrong done must be the direct, and
natural and logical consequence of
felonious act.
As a rule person is criminally
responsible
In the ff cases the wrong done is
considered the direct, natural and
logical consequences of the
felony committed although:
a. Threatened or chased by a
knife
b. Removed drainage from the
wound (peritonitis)
c. Other causes cooperated as
long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous/ erroneous or
unskillful medical or surgical
treatment
d. Victim was suffering from
internal malady
Blow was efficient cause
of death (deceased had a
delicate constitution e. tb)
Blow accelerated death (
victim internal malady
fist blows accelerated
death)
Blow was proximate
cause of death (deceased
suffering from a heart
disease was stabbed with
a knife not penetrating the
thoracic cavity but caused
shock)
e. The offended party refused to
submit to surgical operation
f. The resulting injury was
aggravated by infection
Ex. People vs Quianson
accused took hold of a
fireband applied it to the neck
of the person pestering him
and victim also receives from
the accused wounds on his
abdomen below the navel.
Victim took out the drainage
w/c resulted from peritonitis
and eventually caused his
death. Accused claimed as a
defense that if the drainage
were not taken out then the
victim would have not die.
Held: Death was the natural
consequence
U.S. vs. Marasigan - the
accused strucked Mendoza
with a knife causing the
victim to ward off the blow
w/c resulted a cut in the left
hand. The extensor tendon in
one of his fingers was
severed causing the middle
finger to be useless.
Held: Mendoza is not obliged
to submit to surgical

3
operations to relieve the
accused from the natural and
ordinary results of his crime.
People vs. Reloj - victim
was stabbed by an ice pick
although the operation was
successful; 5 days later he
developed Paralytic ileum
and then died.
Held: Immediate cause was
P.I.but it was the exposure of
the internal organs that lead
it. Accused is responsible for
the natural cause of his own
acts.
The felony committed must be the
proximate cause of the resulting
injury
Proximate Cause that cause,
which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause,
produces the injury, and without
which the result would have not
occurred.
How to determine proximate cause
Overturned bus- four of its
passengers was stuck and
gasoline began to leak from the
tank, spreading and permeating
the body of the bus. 10 men one
carrying a lighted torch
approached the bus to help the 4
people and almost immediately a
fierce fire started, burning the
people inside
Proximate cause: Negligence on
the part of the agents of the
carrier.
Ex. People vs, Luces accused
gave a fist blow on the stomach
of Feliciana, causing her to fall
unconscious but she never
regained consciousness and after
a few minutes died. Autopsy
found that the probate cause was
cardiac failure and the accused
contended that the fist blow was
not the PC.
Held: Blow was the primary
cause of death. The gravity
of the crime does not
depend on the more or less
violent means used but on
the result and consequence
of the same.
The ff are not efficient intervening
causes (breaks connection between
defendants action and injury or loss
to another):
1. The weak or diseased physical
condition of the victim
2. The nervousness or temperament
of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the
victim
4. Neglect of the victim or third
person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical
or surgical treatment
Ex. People vs. Piamonte One of
the accused stabbed the victim with a
hunting knife. The injured party was
taken to the hospital and operated on
and the operation did him well but he
contracted mucous colitis w/c
developed b/c of his weak condition.
Held: Stabbing although was not the
immediate cause is the proximate
cause of the death of the victim and
this is enough to make the accused
responsible for the crime. Robbery
w/ homicide because it was
committed w/ malice
When death is presume to be the
natural consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted
1. That the victim at the time the
physical injuries were inflicted
was in NORMAL HEALTH.
2. That death may be EXPECTED
from the physical injuries
inflicted.
3. That death ENSUED w/in a
REASONABLE TIME.
Not direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony
committed
Distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the criminal act
consequences resulting from this
does not make the offender
responsible for such
consequences.
A person is not liable criminally
for all possible consequences w/c
may immediately follow his
felonious act, but only for such
are proximate.
The felony committed is not the
proximate cause of the resulting
injury when:
1. There is an ACTIVE FORCE
(distinct act or absolutely
foreign) the intervened between
the felony committed and the
resulting injury.
2. The resulting injury is due to the
INTENTIONAL ACT of the
VICTIM
Fault and carelessness of the
injured party must have its origin
from his malicious act or
omission, as when the injured

4
party had a desire to increase
criminal liability of his assailant.
A supervening event may be the
subject of amendment of original
information or of a new charge
without double jeopardy
Where the original information
of the charge was for slight
physical injury because at that
time the fiscal believed that the
injury suffered by the victim
would only require 8 days of
medical assistance but when the
preliminary investigation
commenced the justice of peace
found that the wound would heal
after 30 days which converts the
original crime into a more serious
one. This charge can still be
subject to amendments w/o
double jeopardy.
Impossible Crimes
Indicates criminal propensity on
criminal tendency on the part of
the actor.
Actor is a potential criminal
Positivist thinking: community
must be protected from anti-
social activities, whether actual
or potential
SOCIALLY DANGEROUS
PERSON morbid type of man
Penalty for IC is in Art. 59 of this
code
Requisites for impossible crime:
1. Act performed would be against
person or property
2. Act done with evil intent
3. Accomplishment is
INHERENTLY IMPODSSIBLE
or means employed if
INADEQUATE or
INEFFECTUAL
4. Act performed should not
constitute a violation of another
provision in the RPC
Important words and phrases in
Par. 2
1. Performing an act w/c would be
an offense against persons or
property
Offender intends to commit a
felony against person or property
and the act performed is against
persons or property.
Should not be actually committed
or else he would be liable for that
felony.
Felonies against persons are:
a. Parricide
b. Murder
c. Homicide
d. Infanticide
e. Abortion
f. Duel
g. Physical injuries
Felonies against property are:
a. Robbery
b. Brigandage
c. Theft
d. Usurpation
e. Culpable insolvency
f. Swindling and other deceits
g. Chattel mortgage
h. Arson and other crimes
involving destruction
i. Malicious mischiefs
If acts performed would be an
offense other than a felony
against persons or against
property, THERE IS NO
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
That the act done w/ evil intent
since the offender in impossible
crime intend to commit an
offense against persons or against
property, must be shown that
there is EVIL INTENT,
2. Were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
a. Inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment
- by its nature one of
impossible
accomplishment
- there must be either
LEGAL or PHYSICAL
IMPOSSIBILITY
1. Would be an offense
against persons
2. Would be an offense
against property
b. Employment of inadequate
means
c. Employment of ineffectual
means
In impossible crimes the act
performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the
Code.
Purpose of the law in punishing the
impossible crime.
To suppress criminal propensity
or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender has not
committed a felony, but
subjectively he is a criminal.





5
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection
with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in
cases of excessive penalties.

Whenever a court has knowledge of any
act, which it may deem proper to repress,
and which is not punishable by law, it
shall render the proper decision, and
shall report to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, the
reasons, which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the
subject of legislation.

In the same way, the court shall submit
to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as
may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of
the provisions of this Code would result
in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused
by the offense.

In connection with acts which
should be repressed but which are
not covered by the law
1
st
par of this article trial of a
criminal case
1. The act committed by the
accused appears not punishable
by any law;
2. But the court deems it proper to
repress such act;
3. In that case the court must render
proper decision by dismissing the
case and acquitting the accused
4. Judge must make a report to the
Chief Executive, through the
Minister of Justice, stating the
reasons w/c induce him to
believe that the said act should be
made the subject of penal
legislation.
Basis of Par. 1: nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege there is
no crime when there is no law
that punishes the act.
In cases of excessive penalty
2
nd
paragraph requires:
1. the court finds the accused
guilty;
2. the penalty provided by law
w/c the court imposes for the
crime committed appears to
be clearly excessive
a. the accused acted w/
lesser degree of malice,
and/or
b. there is no injure or the
injury cause is of lesser
gravity
3. the court should not suspend
the execution of the sentence
4. the judge should submit to
the Chief Executive, through
the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive
clemency.
Accused acting w/ lesser
degree of malice -
Accused maltreated his
wife in his drunken/
inebriated state because
she prevented him from
whipping their son and
the maltreatment caused
proximate death.
Total absence of injury
defendant chief of
police altered and
falsified the municipal
police blotter and book
or records of arrests,
return of warrant of
arrests and bail bond of
person charges with
qualified seduction so as
to show that the
defendant was arrested on
time.
Executive clemency recommended
for the wife who killed her cruel
husband
the power (usually of a
president or governor) to
pardon or commute the
sentence of someone
convicted in that jurisdiction.
Executive clemency recommended
because of the severity of the
penalty for rape
Simple rape article 335 of RPC
reclusion temporal or 12 years and
one day to 20 years.
It is believed that in this case after
the accused have served a term of
imprisonment consistent with
retributive justice, executive
clemency may be extended to him
The penalties are not excessive when
intended to enforce a public policy
1. Rampant lawlessness against
property, person and even the
security of the Government
(promiscuous carrying and use of
powerful weapons)
2. P5,000.00 imposed for selling a can
of powdered Klim Milk for P2.20
when the selling price is P1.80
Courts have the duty to apply the
penalty provided by law

6
A trial judge expressed in his
decision his view against the
wisdom of death penalty and
refused to impose it. Held: It is
the duty of the judicial officers to
respect and apply the law,
regardless of their private
opinions
Well- settled ruled that the courts
are not concerned w/ the wisdom,
efficacy or morality of laws.
Only function: interpret the laws
if not in disharmony w/ the
constitution, apply them.
The courts should interpret and
apply the laws as they find them
on the statute books.
Judge has the duty to apply the law
as interpreted by the Supreme
Court
Against the judges reasoning or
his conscience, he may state his
opinion on the matter but rather
using his personal view he
MUST first think that it is his
duty to apply the law as
interpreted by the Highest
Court of the land
Any deviation from it would
cause as sequel unnecessary
inconveniences, delays and
expenses to litigants.
When a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this code
NO application to SPECIAL
LAWS
Reason: the provisions of this
code
Cannot be invoked in Mala
prohibita only Mala in se.
Exception: People vs. Salazar
applied 2
nd
paragraph in illegal
possession of firearms (special
law) and Price control law.

Art. 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 or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.

Consummated felony, defined.
A felony consummated when all
the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment
are present.
Frustrated felony, defined.
it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony
as a consequence but w/c,
nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
Attempted felony, defined.
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
w/c should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Development of a crime
Stages:
1. Internal acts such as mere
ideas of a person, are nit
punishable even if, had they
been carried out, they would
constitute a crime.
- no effect is no more a crime
than a mere effect without the
intention is a crime.
2. External acts
a) Preparatory acts
ordinarily they are not
punishable except
independent crimes
- do not constitute even the
1
st
stage of the acts of
execution of those crimes.
b) Acts of execution they
are punishable under the
RPC. Stage: attempted,
frustrated, consummated
The offender may reach both the
1
st
and 2
nd
stage, he does not
produce the felony he intends to
commit but he is liable for both.
Attempted Felony
Directly by overt acts
Elements:
1. The offender commences the
omission directly by overt
acts
2. He does not perform all the

7
acts of execution which
should produce the felony
3. The offenders act be not
stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance
4. The non- performance of all
acts of execution was due to
cause or accident other than
his spontaneous desistance.
Important words and phrases in art.
6
1. Commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt
acts
When is a felony deemed
commenced directly by overt acts?
2 requisites:
a) That there be external
acts;
b) Such external acts have
direct connection with the
crime intended to be
committed.
The external acts must be related to
the overt acts of the crime the
offender intended to commit.
Must be related
Not mere preparatory acts, for PA
do not have direct connection with
the crime w/c the offender intends
to commit.
Overt acts an overt act is some
physical activity of deed,
indicating the intention to commit
a particular crime, more than mere
planning or preparation, w/c if
carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, w/o
being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into
a concrete offense.
Preparatory acts and overt acts,
distinguished.
Buying poison v. buying poison
and putting it to anothers food.
Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is
not an overt act of homicide
Ex: Tabago and Chief of Police
to constitute attempted homicide
the person using the firearm must
fire the same, w/ intent to kill, at
the offended party, w/o however
infliction a mortal wound on the
latter.
Raising a bolo as if to strike the
offended party w/ it is not an overt
act of homicide.
US v. Simeon the only crime
committed is threatening another
w/ a weapon
Overt act may not be by physical
activity.
By nature or manner of
committing them
Thus, a proposal consisting
in making an offer of money
to a public officer for
corruption is the overt act of
the crime of corruption.
The external acts must have a direct
connection with the crime intended
to be committed by the offender.
A = store Chinaman, attempted
trespass to dwelling
What is an indeterminate offense?
It is one where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is
not certain. Its nature in relation
to its objective is ambiguous.
The intention of the accused must
be viewed from the nature of the
acts executed by him, and not from
his admission.
Nature must be ascertained from
the facts and, therefore, it is
necessary that the mind be able
to directly infer from them the
intention of the perpetrator to
cause a particular injury.
Acts susceptible of double
interpretation in favor as well
as against the accused, innocent
as well as punishable. CANNOT
FURNISH GROUNDS by
themselves for accepted crime.
Directly by overt acts.
The offender commences the
commission of the felony directly
by overt acts.
Only offenders who personally
execute the commission of a
crime can be guilty of attempted
felony.
Directly offender taking direct
part in the execution of the act.
Ex. A induced B to Kill C but be
refused cannot be held liable
for attempted homicide, only a
proposal. But if B accepted and
commenced the crime by
shooting C but missed, they will
both liable with attempted felony
b/c of conspiracy.
When there is conspiracy the rule
is:
1. The act of one is the act of all
2. does not perform all the acts
of execution.