Title One

FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES

WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
Felonies
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by
law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be 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.
Classificaton of Felonies
Based on Paragraphs (1) and (2), here are the elements.

The elements of felonies in general are:

1. That there must be an act or omission.
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the Revised
Penal Code.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by
means of dolo or culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No.
80762, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 309, 324)
Note:
By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually
produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient. (People vs.
Gonzales, supra)

● 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.
Note:

By omission is meant inaction, 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.

The omission must be punishable by law.

● Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without

being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy
against the government, who does not disclose and make
known the same to the proper authority, is liable for
misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
Note:
● Punishable by law.
“Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”
There is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
According to paragraph (3) of Article 3 —

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo)

but also by means of fault (culpa).

Classifications:
1. Intentional felonies - the act or omission of the offender is
malicious. The offender, in performing the act or in incurring
the omission, has the intention to cause an injury to another.
2. Culpable felonies - the act or omission of the offender is not
malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another
person is "unintentional, it being simply the incident of
another act performed without malice.
 By means of dolo or with malice
(When is a person liable for intentional felony?)

● intent to do an injury to another

● Offender, in performing an act or in
incurring an omission, has the intention to
an injury to the person, property or right of
another.
● The act or omission is punishable in the
Revised Penal Code.
 By means of fault or culpa
(When is a person liable for culpable felony?)

● Committed unconsciously and quite

intentionally
● Performed without malice
● The act or omission is punishable in the
Revised Penal Code but is in a lesser
degree and with an equal result. It is
qualified as imprudence or negligence.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to
cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable felony.

Difference between 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, there is imprudence.
● Negligence indicates a deficiency of perception.
○ If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due
diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be
caused, there is negligence.
● Negligence usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence usually
involves lack of skill.
Both acts must be voluntary.

● Intentional felony - committed when the act is performed

with deliberate intent, which must necessarily be voluntary.
● Culpable felony - committed when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill, the act is also voluntary.
● The difference is the presence of malice.
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:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an
act;
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to
do the act;
3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act
● Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence
● The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a
person.
● Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an
unlawful act, but it does not arise from the proof of the
commission of an act which is lawful.
○ There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
● Mistake of fact
○ While ignorance of the law excused no one from compliance therewith,
ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability.
○ This is the misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act
with criminal intent.
○ 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.
Mistake of Fact
Take note:
● Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case.
● In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be.
● The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
● In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be
lawful.
● Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another,
does not relieve the accused from criminal responsibility.
● In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be
lawful.
● No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.
● When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.
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 —

● Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man
guilty unless his intention were so."
● Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, "an act done by me against my
will is not my act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
● When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a
defense.
● Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by
means of culpa.
● Therefore, 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:
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;
2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
3. He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing
the act or omitting to do the act.
● In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
● Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence.
● A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or fault, is not
criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code.
MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA

Crimes which are mala in se are wrongful from their nature, such as theft,
rape, homicide, etc..
Those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous
condemnation of its members.
Crimes that are mala prohibita, or wrong merely because prohibited by
statute, such as illegal possession of firearms.
These are violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more
orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)
Article 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.
Let’s look at paragraph (1) --- ANY PERSON

One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the

consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen or intended or not.

In view of paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing a felony is criminally

liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by
him.

Thus, where the death of the 6 year-old victim was brought about by the
rape committed by the accused, it is of no moment that she died by
accident when she hit her head on the pavement while struggling, because,
having performed an act constituting a felony, he is responsible for all the
consequences of said act, regardless of his intention. (People vs. Mario
Mariano, 75 O.G. 4802, No. 24, June 11, 1979)
● One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one's
illegal acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such
consequences. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310)
● “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.
● This paragraph says that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
“committing a felony,” not merely performing an act. It applies only to felonies
committed by means of dolo, that is, with malice; however, this wrongful act
done “different from that which he intended.”
○ Therefore, if the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of

foresight or lack of skill of the offender, his liability should be determined

under Article 365 which defines and penalizes criminal negligence. This
Article does not apply.
Let’s look at paragraph (1) --- 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:
(1) mistake in the identity of the victim (error in personae);
(2) mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (aberratio ictus);
and
(3) the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater
than that intended (praeter intentionem)
 Aberratio ictus
Error in personae
Praeter intentionem
Requisites of paragraph 1 of Art. 4

a. That an intentional felony has been committed; and

b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony committed
by the offender. (US vs. Brobst)
● That a felony has been 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.
○ Act of defense or fulfillment of duty must be exercised with due care; otherwise,
the accused will be liable for culpable felony.
● Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate sense of danger, which
causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter's injuries, is liable for the
resulting injuries.
● Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.
● The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
○ 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." (Bataclan vs. Medina, 102 Phil. 181,
186, quoting 38 Am. Jur. 695)
○ The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
a) 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
b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
● When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries
inflicted.
○ The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, when the following facts are established:
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 within a reasonable time. (People vs. Datu Baginda,
C.A., 44 O.G. 2287)
● 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. (People vs. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038)
○ The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the re sulting 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.
Impossible Crimes
Let’s look at paragraph (2) --- IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

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. The penalty for impossible crime is provided in Article 59 of
this Code.

Requisites of impossible crime:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision
of the Revised Penal Code.
Let’s look at paragraph (2) --- PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH COULD BE
AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY

In committing an impossible crime, the offender intends to commit a felony

against persons or a felony against property, and the act performed would have
been an offense against persons or property. But a felony against persons or
property should not be actually committed, for, otherwise, he would be liable for
that felony. There would be no impossible crime to speak of.

If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or
against property, there is no impossible crime.

Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense against

persons or against property, it must be shown that the actor performed the act
with evil intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an injury to another.
Let’s look at paragraph (2) --- WERE IT NOT FOR THE INHERENT
IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHEMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS

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.
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

a. "Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment."

This phrase means that the act intended by the offender is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment. (See Art. 59, Revised Penal Code)

There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of

accomplishing the intended act.
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

a. "Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment."

This phrase means that the act intended by the offender is by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment. (See Art. 59, Revised Penal Code)

There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing
the intended act.

Examples:
(1) When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he believes to
be arsenic when in fact it is common salt; and
(2) when one tries to murder a corpse. (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493, 496)
In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property, because:

(2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate; or (b) ineffectual.

a. inadequate

Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with

the food given to B, believing that the quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since in
fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed. The means employed (small quantity of poison) is
inadequate to kill a person.

But where the means employed is adequate and the result expected is not produced, it
is not an impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.

Thus, if the quantity of poison used is sufficient to kill an ordinary person, but the
intended victim has developed strong resistance to poison because he has been
working in a mine, the crime committed is frustrated murder.
In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property, because:

(2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate; or (b) ineffectual.

a. ineffectual

A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought was arsenic when in
fact it was sugar. B could not have been killed, because the means employed was
ineffectual. But A showed criminal tendency and, hence, he should be punished for it in
accordance with Art. 4, par. 2, in relation to Art. 59.

A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A, not knowing that it
was empty. When he pressed the trigger it did not fire. The means used by A is
ineffectual.
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.
Article 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.