CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES

 Criminal law – branch of public law that defines crimes, treats of their nature and
provides for their punishment.

 Motive v. Intent
o MOTIVE – is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a definite result.
It is not an element of the crime.
o INTENT – is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. It is an
element of the crime (except in unintentional felonies).
 Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the
meaning of, and apply, the law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
 The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to
lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a
large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses.

LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL

LEGISLATION

1. No ex post facto law shall be enacted.

An ex post facto law is one which:

a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent
when done, and punishes such an act;
b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

3. Congress is also prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment without
judicial trial for that would constitute a bill of attainder.

Bill of attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative act for judicial determination of guilt.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Art. III of the 1987 Constitution)

1. Right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or

administrative bodies (Sec. 16)
2. Right to due process of law (Sec. 14[1])
3. Right to bail even when the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended (except
those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of
guilt is strong). Excessive bail shall not be required (Sec. 13)
4. Right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise
5. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
6. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
7. Right to have speedy, impartial and public trial
8. Right to meet the witnesses face to face
9. Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf

1|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
10. Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice
11. Right against self-incrimination – no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. (Sec. 17)
12. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec. 12[2])
13. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. (Sec.19[1])
14. Right against double jeopardy. If an act punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
(Sec. 21)
15. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. (Sec. 11)

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (Sec. 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure)

1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings,
from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment.
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters
covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial, and public trial.
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and, in the manner, prescribed by law.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. GENERAL – Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory. (Art. 14, NCC)
 The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation and right of every
government to uphold its laws and maintain order within its domain, and with
the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its
territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender.
 No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-judicial right to be exempted from its
laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of states and diplomatic
representatives who, by virtue of the customary laws of nations, are not subject
to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction.

 EXCEPTIONS:
o Principles of public international law or laws of preferential
application
 RA 75 – law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic
representatives and their domestic servants
 The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal
laws:
 Sovereign and other chiefs of state
 Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and
charges d’affiares
 It is a well-established principle of international law that diplomatic
representatives, such as ambassadors or public ministers and their official

2|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
retinue, possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of
their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that
country.
 A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
ambassador or minister.
 It is well-settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws
and regulation of the country to which he is accredited.
 In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not exempt
from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country
where he resides.
 Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of
foreign nations do not possess the status of, and cannot claim the
privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers.
o Treaty stipulations
 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)

2. TERRITORIAL – Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine

territory. Penal laws are enforceable only within its territory. It shall be enforced within
the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone.

 Art. I of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all
other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines.”

 EXCEPTIONS: Art. 2 of the RPC provides that its provisions shall be enforced
outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines
of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations.

3. PROSPECTIVE – A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it

was not punishable when committed.

 EXCEPTION: Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes

conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given
retroactive effect.
o EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions
or existing causes of action.
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal.

 Different effects of repeal on penal law:

3|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied.
EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not
applicable to pending action or existing causes of action.
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under
the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
a. When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS:

- Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the
accused. The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the State may
be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the
rule.

ARTICLE 1 - DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS: January 1, 1932

TWO IMPORTANT THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW:

1. CLASSICAL THEORY – Characteristics:

a. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty
is retribution.
b. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose
between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the effect or
result of the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal himself.
c. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime
and penalty.
d. There is a scant regard to the human element.

2. POSSITIVIST THEORY – Characteristics:

a. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which

constrains him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition.
b. Crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon and as such, it cannot be
treated and checked by the application of abstract principle of law and
jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed and determined a
priori; but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each
particular case after a thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted
by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.

ARTICLE 2: Application of its provisions – shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, but also outside of its jurisdiction in certain cases.

 It treats of the application of the RPC to acts committed in the air, at sea,
and even in a foreign country when such acts affect the political or economic
life of the nation.

1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

airship.
 A Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is
considered part of the national territory.
 Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or
airship while the same is outside of the Philippine territory can be tried
before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.

4|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
 When the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country,
the crime committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that
foreign country.
 A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered
in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
 It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of
the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner, which makes it a Philippine
ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft which is unregistered or unlicensed does
not come within the purview of Par Nos. 1 of Art. 2.
 The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on
the high seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.
 RTC have original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed on the
high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or
warcraft of any kind – registered or licensed in the Philippines in accordance
with its laws.

2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government.

 Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges
treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a
foreign country may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Art. 163
or Art. 166 of the RPC.

3. When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into the Philippines of the obligations and securities issued by the
Government.
 Reason: The introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and
securities into the Philippines is dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of
the same to the economical interest of the country.

4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit
an offense in the exercise of his functions.

 Crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions:

1. Direct bribery (Art. 210)
2. Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
3. Frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213)
4. Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
5. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217)
6. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218)
7. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220)
8. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221)
9. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his
official position (Art. 171)

5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national
security and the law of nations.

 Crimes against national security and the law of nations

1. Treason (Art. 114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
3. Espionage (Art. 117)
4. Inciting to war ang giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118)
5. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)

5|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
6. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120)
7. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
8. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)

Crimes committed on board a foreign merchant ship or airship

- Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is
considered an extension of the territory of the country to which it brings.
- An offense committed on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable
by our courts.

Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel

- When the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial
waters, regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed
from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas – it is within the jurisdiction of
the courts of the Philippines.

Offenses committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters

is triable before our court

- Since the Philippine territory extends to three miles from the headlands, when a FMV
enters this 3-mile limit, the ship’s officers and crew become subject to the jurisdiction of
our courts.

Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels

- 2 rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed about merchant vessels while in the
territorial waters of another country:

o FRENCH RULE: Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless
their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of
the state is endangered.
o ENGLISH RULE: Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely
affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.

- The Philippines observes the ENGLISH RULE.

Q: Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide committed
on board an FMV by a member of the crew against another?

- YES. Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be
dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which
disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and if need be, the offenders punished by
the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction.

Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on board a foreign

merchant vessel in transit not triable by our courts.

- Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable in
Philippine courts, because the fact alone does not constitute a breach of public order.
The reason for this ruling is that mere possession of opium on such a ship, without
being used in our territory, does not bring about in this country those disastrous
effects that our law contemplates avoiding.

- But said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the vessel on
Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the laws of the Philippines.

6|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
- When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the Philippines is its terminal
port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable, because he may
be held guilty of illegal importation of opium.

- Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.

7|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign
warships in territorial waters.

- In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction
must be made between merchant ships and warships; the former are more or less
subjected to the territorial laws.
- Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and
cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.
- A United States Army transport is considered a warship.

Extra-territorial application of RA 9372 or “Human Security Act of 2007”

ARTICLE 3: Felonies

FELONIES – are acts and omissions punishable by the RPC.

 Elements:
a. There must be an act or omission.
b. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
c. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

o The act must be done which is defined by the RPC as constituting a felony; or at least, an
overt act of that felony – an external act which has direct connection with the felony
intended to be committed.

Only external act is punished

- The act must be external because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
Hence, a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it
may be, will never constitute a felony.

Omission – meant inaction, it is the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to
do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.

- In felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the
person required to do the act fails to perform it.

The omission must be punishable by law

- Because there is no law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorities
the commission of a crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.

o Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa)

Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed:

 Intentional felonies
o The act or omission of the offender is malicious
o The act is performed with deliberate intent (with malice)
o The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the
intention to cause an injury to another.
o Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another.
o When the offender, in performing an act or incurring an omission, has the
intention to do an injury to the person, property, or right of another, such

8|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punished by the RPC, he is
liable for intentional felony.

 Culpable felonies
o The act or omission of the offender is not malicious
o The injury caused by the offender to another person is unintentional, it is being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
o The wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill

IMPRUDENCE – indicates a deficiency of action. If a person fails to take the necessary

precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property. it usually involves lack of skill.

NEGLIGENCE – indicated a deficiency of perception. If a person fails to pay proper attention

and use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused. It usually
involves lack of foresight.

*A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails over assumption, and in

the absence of indubitable explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and
punishable.

REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE

- In order that an act or omission may be considered as having been performed or

incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur:
o FREEDOM
o INTELLIGENCE
o INTENT – to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an
unlawful act.

Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.

- One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another. One
who acts without intelligence has no such intent.
- A person who acts with freedom and with intelligence may not have the intent to do an
injury to another. Thus, a person who caused an injury by mere accident had freedom
and intelligence, but since he had no fault or intention of causing it, he is not criminally
liable.

The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person

- Intent to kill is difficult to prove, it being a mental act. But it can be deduced from the
external acts performed by a person.

MISTAKE OF FACT

- While ignorance of the law excuses no one ( ignorantia legis non excusat), ignorance or
mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability ( ignorantia facti excusat).
- It is the misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent.
- REQUISITES:
a. The act done would not have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be
b. The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
c. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

*US v. Ah Chong: Justified killing – Art. 11 Par. 1 of the RPC

9|Clarence Joy C.
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
*Pp v. Oanis: Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused
would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the
most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the
fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him
that killing him would be justified.

*In error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact
does not apply.

*Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo.

- Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo because of the legal
maxims –
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so.
o Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is
not my act.

REQUISITES OF FAULT OR CULPA

- In order that the act or omission in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa may
be considered voluntary, the following requisites must concur:
o FREEDOM
o INTELLIGENCE
o IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the
act or omitting to do the act.

Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.

- It is not sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by
the special law.

Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crime punished
by special laws.

MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA

- Mala in se are crimes which are wrongful from their nature.

o Are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members
o Intent governs
o Generally, refers to felonies defined and penalized by the RPC
o When the acts are inherently immoral even if punished by special laws

- Mala prohibita are wrong merely because prohibited by statute.

o Are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society
o Has the law been violated?
o Criminal intent is not necessary for reasons of public policy
o Generally, refers to acts made criminal by special laws

INTENT v. MOTIVE

- Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. It is not an
essential element of a crime and need not be proved for purposes of conviction.
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.

INSTANCES WHEN MOTIVE IS RELEVANT AND NEED NOT BE ESTABLISHED

10 | C l a r e n c e J o y C .
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
1. Identity of the accused
o Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the
commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is
convincing.
o When the identity of the accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the
motive may have impelled its commission is very relevant.
o Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. It
is immaterial when the accused has been positively identified.
o When the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer necessary to inquire into
his motive for doing the act.

2. Antagonistic theories – motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two

antagonistic versions of the killing.
3. No eyewitnesses – when suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is
relevant and significant
4. Circumstantial evidence or sufficient evidence – proof of motive is essential. It is
not indispensable when guilt is established by sufficient evidence.

ARTICLE 4: Criminal Liability

RATIONAL: He who is the cause is the cause of the evil caused

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
- The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended
are:
o Mistake in the identity of the victim – error in personae
o Mistake in the blow (aberration ictus) – when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on another
o The act exceeds the intent – the injurious result is greater than that
intended (praeter intentionem)
- Requisites:
a. An intentional felony has been committed
b. The wrong done to the aggrieved party is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed
- No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC or (2)
when the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
- One acting in self-defense is not committing a felony
- The act of defense or fulfillment of duty must be exercised with due care; otherwise, the
accused will be liable for culpable felony.

Proximate cause – is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have
occurred.

*If a man creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such
person to try to escape and in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such a
state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.

o The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
1. There is 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

11 | C l a r e n c e J o y C .
 CRIMINAL LAW I NOTES
o The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, when the following facts are established:
1. The victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
2. Death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
3. Death ensued within a reasonable time

*If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences. A person is not liable
criminally for all possible consequences which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only
for such as are proximate.

*Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but it is not a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the criminal act.

Wrongful done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act

- It is an established rule that a person is criminally responsible for acts committed by him
in violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting
therefrom.

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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

- The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal

tendency on the part of the actor. Such person is a potential criminal.

- Requisites:
a. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property
b. The act was done with evil intent
c. Its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either
inadequate or ineffectual
d. The act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

- In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property because: (1) the commission of the offense (against
persons or against property) is inherently impossible of accomplishment, or (2) the
means employed is either (a) inadequate, or (b) ineffectual.

- Purpose of the law 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.

12 | C l a r e n c e J o y C .