Module 3 – Felonies – Commission

In dubio pro reo – when in doubt, the rule in favor of the accuse

Lenity - a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments,
should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment

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.

Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the RPC

Elements of Felonies
1. Act or omission
2. Punishable under RPC
3. By means of dolo or culpa

Actus reus – act or omission that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute
Mens rea – criminal mind

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – there is no crime when there is no concurrence of the act and the
mind
NOTE: for there to be a crime, the act and the mind must concur.

Important words and phrases

Acts – any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world
- It being unnecessary that the same be actually produced
- Defined by RPC as an overt act of that felony – external act which has direct connection with
felony (Article 6)
o Consummated
 When all elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
o Frustrated
 Performs all acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
o Attempted
 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

Only external acts are punished.

- Internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal laws
- Mere criminal thought or intention will never constitute felony

Omission – inaction; failure to perform a positive duty

- there must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act
 - Examples:
o Child neglect
o Abandonment of a person in danger
o Illegal exaction (tax collector who voluntarily fails to issue receipt)
o Misprision of treason (deliberate concealment)

The omission must be punishable by law.

- No law to punish omission, then not a felony

“Punishable by law”
- Based upon the maxim of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no law, no crime)
- Specifically under RPC and not by special law
o Offense – special laws/statutes
o RPC – crime
- Doctrine of Legality – Article 21: No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.

Classification of felonies through commission

1. Intentional felonies (dolo)
a. Means of deceit
2. Culpable felonies (culpa)
a. Means of fault

Violation = punishment = ADAM AND EVE = FIRST PENAL LAW

Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies

Malicious and w/ Not malicious
deliberate intent
Intent to cause injury to Injury caused by
another offender to another is
unintentional
Wrongful act results
from “imprudence,
negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill

*Most of the felonies in RPC are committed by means of dolo or with malice.
- Culpa felonies are:
- Article 217 or malversation through negligence
- Article 224 or evasion through negligence
- Article 365 punishes acts by imprudence
Negligence, which if it had been intentional, would constitute grave, less grave, or light felonies

*Murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence.

Acts can be done:

1. Voluntarily and intentionally
2. Unconsciously and unintentionally
3. Performed without malice
a. Qualifies as imprudence and negligence
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable
felony.

Imprudence Negligence
Deficiency of action Deficiency of
perception
Person fails to take Person fails to pay
necessary precaution proper attention and to
to avoid injury to a use due diligence in
person or property foreseeing the injury or
damage impending to
be caused
Lack of skill Lack of foresight

Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa)

1. A man must use common sense
2. A man exercises due reflection in all his actions
3. His duty is to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring
punishment.
4. He is responsible for such results and for his actions.
5. Otherwise, his own person, rights, and property, and those of his fellow beings would ever be exposed
to all manner of danger and injury.

In felonies committed by dolo and culpa, the acts or omission are voluntary.
The act or omission must be voluntary and punishable by law to constitute a felony.

An intentional felony is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessarily be voluntary.

Culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary.

Article 365 “reckless imprudence consists in a voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results.”
- The act, although without malice, was still done voluntarily—meaning the person still chose to do it
anyway.

*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.

*When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.

Reasons why felonies must be voluntary

1. Classical theory of human free will
2. Man is a rational being – one must prove that his case falls under Article 12 to show his act is not
voluntary
3. Dolo = act itself is voluntary; culpa = imprudence consists in voluntarily without malice

Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability (Article 12)

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval
2. A person under nine years of age
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment
 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause

Requisites of dolo
1. Freedom
a. Under compulsion or irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability
2. Intelligence
a. Inability to determine the morality of human acts exempts from criminal liability
3. Intent
a. Presumed and presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act

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

- Act from intelligence + freedom may not necessarily have the intent to do an injury to another
- Injury from mere accident (intelligence + freedom) = not criminally liable

Intent is shown by overt acts of a person

Intent to kill is difficult to prove because it is a mental act. But it can be deduced from external acts performed
by the person. (INTENT TO KILL and INJURE as well)
1. The means used by malefactors
2. Nature, location, and number of wounds of the victim
3. Conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after killing
4. Circumstances under which the crime was committed and motives of the accused

Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.

- Unless the contrary shall appear

But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which
is not unlawful.
- Lawful act done in good faith but resulted in injury to another = not criminally liable
- Based on the maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – a crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing to act complained be innocent
- General rule: if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed
that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this presumption.
- Where facts proven are accompanied by other facts which show that the act complained of was lawful,
the presumption of criminal intent does not arise.

*There is no felony by dolo if there is not intent.

Intent = can dictate what crime or penalty the accused should have

The presumption of criminal intent can be rebutted by proof of lack of such intent:
1. Mistake of fact
a. Different from ignorance of the law
b. Resolves criminal liability
c. Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another
d. Honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent
2. Involuntary acts
When is act considered Mistake of Fact:
1. Act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believe them to be
2. Intention for performing the act should be lawful (absence of bad faith)
3. Must be without fault or negligence or carelessness

Requisites of Mistake of Fact:

1. honest and reasonable mistake
2. be a matter of fact
3. negates the culpability acquired to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the
statute prescribes w/ respect to an element of the offense

Republic v. Gervero
There is Neglect/recklessness kasi may mga circumstances that will allow them to confirm identity.

Republic v. Oanis
Same as Republic v. Gervero

Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan
“a mistake of fact” is a misapprehension of a fact which if true would have justified the act/omission which is
the subject of the prosecution. Generally, this is a defense to a charge of crime where it negates the intent
component of the crime. The inquiry therefore is into the mistaken belief of the defendant and not to the belief
or state of mind of any other person.

What constitutes a mistake of fact:

1. Justifying circumstances under Article 11
a. Self-dense
b. Defense of spouse, family, relatives (up to 4th civil degree)
c. Defense of a stranger provided that the 1st and 2nd element of self-defense are there and not be
induced by revenge
d. Did the act to avoid an evil or injury
e. In fulfillment of duty (lawful exercise)
i. Acted in performance of his duty
ii. Injury or offense is necessary consequence
f. Acts in obedient to an order issued by superior for some lawful purpose
2. Absolutory cause under Article 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances)
3. Involuntary act

Elements of self-defense (Article 11):

1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim – sine qua non condition
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to repel such aggression
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of person defending himself

In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
- Error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim – does not apply
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.
- Hypo: One who resists arrest, believing that the peace officer is a bandit, but who submits to the arrest
immediately afterwards, is not guilty
When mistake of fact is out of negligence – NOPE
- Falls under imprudence/negligence
NOTE: Accused must not have ample time to make further inquiry or deliberation before taking immediate
action (Republic v. Oanis)
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo.
Legal maxims:
- Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions
were so
- Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act

Theft
1. Intent to deprive another of personal property
2. Intent to gain

General Intention Specific Intent

Conclusively presumed Considered to be an
by law by the mere element, an ingredient
doing of an act of the commission of
the crime
Prosecution does not Must be proven by the
have the burden to prosecution beyond
prove it reasonable doubt

*Intent to kill is only essential in attempted or frustrated stages of homicide, patricide, murder, infanticide.
Why? The death of the victim is already the best evidence to prove intent to kill

Considerations when determining a crime:

1. Act/omission
2. intent

Intent Motive
Use of a particular Moving power that
means to achieve impels a person to do a
desired results specific act to achieve
the desire result
(reason behind intent)
Material element in Immaterial to
determining criminal determine the criminal
liability liability
Established/proven by Established by the
overt acts acts/statements made
by the accused prior to
or immediately after the
crime

General Rule: Motive is not material in determining the criminal liability of the offender is identified, admits to
the commission to the crime, if the prosecution has direct evidence or eyewitness to the commission of the
crime, if crime committed is culpable felony, crime committed is not a special penal law.

Exception to the Rule:

1. Result to variant crimes
2. Identity of the offender is doubtful
3. Prosecution only has circumstantial evidence
Testimony of witnesses – to prove motivations
- Involves acts or statements made by the accused before or immediately after the commission of the
crime

Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime.

Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about conviction. But motive AND circumstantial
evidence, or motive AND supporting evidence is necessary for conviction.

Lack of motive can aid the accused in showing their innocence. (people v. Hassan)

there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill

Requisites of culpa
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence or lacks foresight or skill

Penalty - Article 365. Imprudence and negligence

- Punishes the mental state rather than the act or the result
- Did not foresee the results in the first place unlike in intentional crime, you already have an expectation
of the result based on your intent (Constructive intent)

Negligence or indifference to duty is, in law, equivalent to criminal intent.

Not considered reckless imprudence if it is a mistake of identity to the intended victim.

- There is still deliberate intent to do an unlawful act
- Falls under Article 4
- Error in personnae

If there is neither malice nor negligence that resulted in injury or damage to another, then there is no
criminal liability as per RPC.
- Act must be lawful in the first place

Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provision of this Code – Offenses which are or
in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of
this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.

Three classes of crimes

1. Intentional felonies
2. Culpable felonies
3. Crimes punished by special laws

Dolo is not required for the third class.

- It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law

Intent to commit the Intent to perpetuate

crime the act
a person may not have a person did not intent
 consciously intended to to commit an act which
commit a crime in itself is already a
crime
There must be criminal It is enough that the
intent prohibited act is done
freely and consciously
Elements: Elements:
1. Knowledge of 3. Knowledge of
the nature of the nature of
the act the act
2. Criminal intent 4. volition
Mala in se Mala prohibita

In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense.
Why? The act itself is injurious to public welfare.

Good faith not a valid defense for crimes punished under special laws of mala prohibita.
Exceptions:
1. Purpose of the special law cannot be realized (animus possidendi)
2. Mistake of fact – when accused had never intended to commit the offense
3. Pending application for permit/permit from an official (temporary)
4. Exemptions given to certain persons (Sama v. People)

Mala in se
Acts that are inherently wrong in nature.

Examples:
- Theft
- Rape
- homicide

Mala prohibita
Acts that are only wrong because a law prohibits or penalizes them

Example: illegal possession of firearms

Mala in se Mala prohibita

Inherently evil, wrong not inherently evil or
per se wrong
Call for unanimous Mere rules of
condemnation of its convenience designed
members to secure a more
orderly regulation of
the affairs of society
Criminal liability is Criminal liability is
based on the intent or based on the mere
morality of the offender doing of the prohibited
act
Good faith of lack of Good faither or lack of
criminal intent is a valid criminal intent not a
defense valid defense
Modifying Modifying
circumstances are circumstances NOT
 considered for the considered in the
imposition of penalty imposition of penalty
UNLESS otherwise
provided by special law
Degree of participation Degree of participation
of the offender of the offender
(principal, accomplice, (principal, accomplice,
accessory) is accessory) is NOT
considered for the considered for the
imposition of penalty imposition of penalty
UNLESS otherwise
provided by special law
Stage (attempted, No stages unless
frustrated, otherwise provided
consummated) is taken
into consideration

Not all acts punishable by special laws are mala prohibita. Some can be mala in se because it is inherently
immoral.
Example: Plunder – classified by the legislative intent fund in the “Whereas Clause” of the Plunder Law itself
dictates that it is mala in se

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
As regards the third issue, again we agree with Justice Mendoza that plunder is a malum in se which requires
proof of criminal intent.

Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens rea must be proven in a
prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of
plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of
petitioner.

The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under
the Anti-Plunder Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of plunder since the degree of
responsibility of the offender is determined by his criminal intent.

According to the decision of the Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death:
There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject
criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to
be struggling to develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masse.

Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery,
destructive arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officer that
their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society.

For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not
matter that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes
are mainly mala in se.

Napoles v. De Lima
In initially dismissing the criminal complaint filed by Benhur Luy's family, the prosecutor disregarded the
purported motive behind Benhur Luy's detention. According to the initial Resolution, whether Napoles and Lim
detained Benhur Luy to prevent him from exposing the anomalous transactions of the JLN Group of companies
involving the Priority Development Assistance Fund would spawn an entirely different proceeding; hence, the
issue is irrelevant in the proceedings involving the serious illegal detention charge.

Although motive is not an element of a crime, it is a "prospectant circumstantial evidence" that may
help establish intent. In this case, the Review Resolution sufficiently explained why it was "contrary to human
nature" for Benhur Luy to go on a three (3)-month spiritual retreat with priests that have close ties with
Napoles; and, instead, Benhur Luy had been detained at Bahay ni San Jose, transferred from place to place
until he was rescued in Pacific Plaza because he knew first-hand of Napoles' involvement in the pork barrel
scam.

Padilla v. Dizon
Good faith cannot be used as a defense in special laws with mala prohibita crimes/acts.
The intent is not necessarily “criminal intent” but the intent to perpetrate the act itself.

Sana y Hinupas v. People

They were not exempted from violation of a mala prohibita case not because they are IP but because there is
reasonable doubt on their intent to perpetuate the act.
- There is confusion on the concept of land ownership of IPs when the special law was made.

Old school yung lack of intent sa violation of mala prohibitum. There is intent to perpetuate the act.

Padilla v. CA
Special laws concerning mala prohibita cases should only ask, was the offense done? Good faith cannot be
used as defense. As long as all the elements are present, no need to prove your intent, to get convicted.

Murder Homicide
ART. 248 Art. 249:
Any person who, not Any person who, not
falling within the falling within the
provisions of Article provisions of Article
246 (Paricide), shall kill 246, shall kill another,
another, shall be guilty without the
of murder and shall be attendance of any of
punished by reclusion the circumstances
perpetua, to death if enumerated in the
committed with any of next preceding
the following article, shall be
attendant deemed guilty of
circumstances: homicide and be
punished by reclusion
temporal
Elements: Elements:
1) That a person was (a) a person was killed;
killed;
(b) the accused killed
2) That the accused him without any
killed him; justifying circumstance;

3) That the killing was (c) the accused had the

attended by any of the intention to kill, which is
qualifying presumed; and
circumstances
mentioned in Art. 248; (d) the killing was not
 and attended by any of the
qualifying
4) That the killing is not circumstances of
parricide or infanticide Murder, or by that of
Parricide or Infanticide.

Circumstances to be charged with murder:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.

When will relationship of affinity ends?

Art 332 of RPC – exempted from criminal liability if you commit the offense on a family, blood relative, or
relative by affinity

Complex Crimes – appears to have 2 crimes but only have 1 criminal intent

Not complex: Stole a candy. But then also bought a cellphone because it was beside the candy.

Complex: 1 intent but to come up with the result, you need to do 2 or more crimes.

Terminated affinity v continuing affinity

Death = no more affinity except when there are surviving children
Death = still there

CRIMINAL INTENT
- Exempting circumstances: anything that may affect the brain (Article 12)

The end result of the crime is the general intent of the accused. No need to be proven.

Elements of criminal intent of corruption (Martel v. People):

1. must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions;
2. he must have acted with manifest partiality, or evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
3. his action caused undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions
*Kung kulang, edi civil or administrative action lng sya.

Criminal Liability should always be proven beyond reasonable doubt – meaning all the elements must be
present in the act to be proven criminal act.

Different result; Act of Commission is different; but same Intent;

Case to case basis

Article 4. Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although 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 on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Meaning behind Paragraph 1

General Rule: One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the direct consequences which
may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
- Still criminally liable even if the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him.
- Criminal intent and criminal act present – confluence of both

Example: Man raped child. He did not mean to but the child died by accidentally hitting her head. Having
performed a felonious act, he is responsible for all the consequences of said act, regardless of his intention.

Rationale of rule in paragraph 1

The doctrine of 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 (Vasquez v. People)

Penalty – Article 49

Requisites for Paragraph 1

1. Intentional felony that is not punishable under special laws
2. When the wrong done to the aggrieved party is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
felony committed
a. Natural – refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events
b. Logical – there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury
or damage

Causes which may produce different results from what was intended:
c. Mistake in identity of victim (error in personae)
i. Offender intended to hit the victim
ii. said victim turned out not to be the intended the victim of the offender
*NOTE: Accused should be convicted of the actual crime, but when there is a variance of penalty
between intended felonious act and actual felonious act, penalty imposed should be the lower
between the two. Otherwise, if both intended and actual felonious acts are the same, no change in
penalty. (Article 49)
d. Mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus)
i. Blow is targeted at the intended victim
ii. Poor aim
iii. Blow landed on someone else
*NOTE: Conviction should lie on the actual felonious act regardless of intent.
e. Resulting act exceed intent (praeter intentionem)
i. Blow landed on the intended victim
ii. Injurious result is far greater than what is intended by the offender
*NOTE: Praeter intentionem is always considered a mitigating circumstance under Article 13 (3) – That
the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Elements for prater intentionem to be a mitigating circumstance

1. Offender committed a felony
2. Notable or notorious disparity between the means employed by the offender and the result of the felony
NOTE: Based on the means employed by the accused, nobody could have foreseen or anticipated such
injurious result.

No Felony is committed when:

1. When act or commission is not punishable under RPC
2. When act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Article 11
Examples:
1. Suicide
2. Self-defense
3. In line of police or military duty (act w/ due cart otherwise it can be grounds for culpable felony)

Criminally liable under Paragraph 1 Article 4

1. 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 – Proximate Cause Doctrine
2. Injuries resulting from medical or surgical treatment that produced fatal results to the patient.
a. PROVIDED that the injury clearly caused the death and not due to the malicious or careless
acts of the injured person or a third person.
3. Blow was efficient cause of death
4. Blow accelerated death
5. Blow was proximate cause of death
6. Resulting injury was aggravated by infection

Proximate Cause Doctrine

- 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.”

Elements of Proximate Cause

1. Intended act is a felonious act
2. Resulting act is a felony
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offender

When felony is not the proximate cause:

1. There is an active force that intervened between the felony and the result – EFFICIENT INTERVENING
CAUSE (EIC)
a. Active force
b. Distinct act or fact
c. absolutely foreign from the felonious act
2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
a. Includes carelessness or fault originating from malicious act or omission

Not efficient intervening causes:

1. Weak or diseased physical conditions of the victim
2. Nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes inherent to the victim (i.e. not knowing how to swim, addiction, etc.)
4. Neglect of the victim or third person
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment
Why?
They are not sufficient causes that disrupted the cause-and-effect relationship between felonious act and its
corresponding consequence.

When death is presumed the NATURAL consequence of physical injuries inflicted

1. Victim was in normal health
 2. Death is to be expected from the injuries
3. Death ensued within reasonable time

Doctrine of Supervening Event

When new circumstances develop after a judgement, which was not present or not made aware of prior to the
said judgement, interested party may properly seek the stay of execution or quashal thereof or move the court
to modify judgement w/out double jeopardy.

Meaning behind Paragraph 2

General Rule: An act that is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency should be penalize.

Rationale behind Paragraph 2

Positivist thinking – community must be protected from “socially dangerous people”, whether actual or potential

Impossible Crimes – when all elements of a felony against person or property are present but it does not
ripen into a crime or offense in the end because it is inherently impossible or the means is ineffectual or
inadequate.
OTHERWISE, it would be called a felony instead.

It is not really a crime in the legal sense of the word because a crime requires a substantive change in the
outside world.

Article 59 – PENALTY of impossible crimes

Arresto mayor or a fine of P200-500 depending on the criminality or dangerousness of the offender

Requisites of impossible Crime

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. Evil intent
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4. Should not violate another provision in the RPC
a. Otherwise, the conviction would be that felony instead of IC

Crimes against persons

1. Parricide
2. Murder
3. Homicide
4. Abortion
5. Infanticide
6. Duel
7. Physical injuries
8. Rape

Crimes against property

1. Robbery
2. Brigandage
3. Theft
4. Usurpation or occupation of real property
5. Estafa or swindling
6. Malicious mischief
7. arson

Kinds of Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment

 1. Legal impossibility
a. When all intended acts even if committed would not have amounted to a crime
2. Physical or Factual impossibility
a. Extraneous circumstances unknown or beyond the control of the offender prevented to produce
the crime

Employment of “inadequate” means

Example: quantity of poison is not enough to kill person.

BUT WHERE THE MEANS IS ADEQUATE, it becomes frustrated felony.

Employment of “ineffectual” means

Example: used of salt instead of poison to kill person

Purpose of Punishing Impossible Crimes

To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies.
Objectively, the offender did not commit felony. Subjectively, he is a criminal.

CASES

Punishable Conduct – Wrongful Act Different from that Intended (RPC Art. 4 [1])

Bataclan v. Medina (1957)

Doctrine of Proximate Cause – Tort case not criminal
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.

There is evidence to show that at the time of the blow out:

1. the bus was speeding
2. there was a distance of about 150 meters
3. The chauffeur, after the blow-out, must have applied the brakes in order to stop the bus
4. Negligence of the driver/conductor to consider the possibility of a gas leak due to its position + smell of
spilled gas and warn the rescuers
5. Negligence of the bus inspectors to not have the tires of the bus changed before its travel

Proximate cause - the overturning of the bus because it completely turned on its back which resulted to the
leak of the gasoline from the tank (unnatural or unexpected).
Consequences – 1) the coming of men with lighted torch as response to the calls for help; 2) nighttime so they
needed light; 3) rural area so torch was the most handy and available source of light; 4) rescuers innocently
approached the vehicle to extend aid

*The rescuers were not an EIC because they were direct, natural and logical consequence of the prox cause.
“For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider
was lost. For want of a rider, the battle was lost.”

People v. Bendecio (2020)

Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus – mistake in the blow
Criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom. Moreover, treachery may still be appreciated in aberration ictus. Treachery
should not be inferred from the result but from the act itself.

Intended Crime – Murder (treachery – suddenly drew out his gun and shot the intended victim)
Intended Victim – Gerry, the father of the victim
*Completely missed the victim

Resulting Crime – Complex crime of murder with attempted murder

Resulting Victim – death of victim (the daughter), and physical injuries to the sister

RULING: Accused is liable to the death of the victim even though she was not his intended victim and he was
targeting the father instead. It would not be considered homicide because the elements of treachery is still
there:
1. employment of means to ensure offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act from the offended
party
2. means was deliberately chosen by the offender
*Complex – there are two or more crimes resulting from one act – NOT a difficult crime

Discussion of criminal cases under paragraph 1

1. what was the act
2. what was the intent – demonstrated through the overt acts
3. result is different from the intent

Discussion of criminal cases under impossible crime

1. act
2. intent - demonstrated through the overt acts
3. resulting act
4. did it happen? Impossible? Inadequate? Ineffectual?

THINK OF YOURSELF AS A MOVIE GOER

you’re watchiong a movie or play, when you discuss a case, you tell the professor the class what you saw in
the movie you will only see particular acts. tell the class what you see what you heard from the screen you do
not tell us what you felt kasi hindi na yun part ng movie, in criminal law do not tell us your opinion.
- kwento
- interpretation
- conclusion

Cruz v. People (2020)

Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus
1. an intentional felony has been committed
2. that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender

Accused, police officer, fired his gun at victim. Hit the latter on the arm and hit an unsuspecting minor. Intended
victim was survived but collateral victim died.
- Accused’s defense – the victim drew his gun first so he had no choice but to defend himself

Intended Crime: Homicide

Intended Victim: hit at the arm (2) but survived

Resulting Crime: Homicide

Resulting Victim: random kid who was flying a kite

RTC RULING: frustrated homicide and reckless imprudence resulting to homicide (lack of intent)
CA RULING: same
Accused’s arguments: justifying circumstances of self-defense and lawful performance of duty + mitigation on
the part of the intended victim

RULING: Should be homicide instead of reckless imprudence

1. Intentional felony – multiple shots fired at Bernardo
2. Death of the victim who was hit by those bullet was a direct, natural, and logical consequence of said
intentional felony.
Finding dolo or malice on the part of Cruz is incompatible with criminal negligence under Art. 365.

People v. Cabareño (2001)

Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus
Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony, although the actual victim would be different
from the one intended. The same crime would have been committed if the injured man and the deceased had
been the intended victim instead of the actual victim; the crime of homicide would have been committed just
the same and one man would have been deprived of his life by the criminal act (US v. Diana).

Setting was in a disco. Accused, his companions, and the victims had been drinking. An altercation ensued
when someone spilled beer all over accused. Victim and his companion tried to pacify the fight. Accused tried
to shoot the victim’s companion at the back but the bullet hit the back of the victim instead.
- Accused’s version, he ended up grappling with someone over the gun and so it accidentally fired,
hitting the back of the victim

TRIAL COURT RULING: Murder

RULING: Homicide - No treachery even tho accused fired from the back – lacking the first element which is
safety of the offender

People v. Sabalones (1998)

Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus
“It must be stressed that the trial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why the appellants
staged the ambush, not to prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. Even assuming that the trial
court did err in explaining the motive of the appellants, this does not detract from its findings, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals and sustained by this Court in the discussion above, that the guilt of the appellants was
proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

Doctrine of Error in Personae

“Mistake in identity of the victim does not diminish the offender’s culpability. Mistake in the identity of the victim
carries the same gravity as when then accused zeroes in on his intended victim.”

The victims were driving their friend’s car. Their other companions were in another car behind them, in convoy.
While parking the car, the following accused began raining bullets on the victims and their companions
because they thought that they were connected with the person whom the accused had prior altercations with.
So the accused thought that the victims were there to exact their revenge on him. Two of the victims died.
While three were injured as a result to the ambush.

RTC RULING: 2 counts of murder and 3 counts of frustrated murder

CA RULING: modified penalty – increased it to 10-17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal (Frustrated
murder) and reclusion perpetua (for murder)
RULING: Affirmed CA

Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan (2012)

Doctrine of Error in Personae
Mistake of fact is different from mistake in identity. Mistake of fact must be:
 1. Honest and reasonable
2. Matter of fact
3. Negate the culpability required to commit the crime or existence of the mental state of negligence, etc
Mistake in identity, on the other hand, still has that criminal intent to do harm or corpus delicti:
1. Criminal act
2. Defendant’s agency in the commission of the act
Evidence of intent to kill or bring forth death and not just reckless imprudence:
1. Cluster of bullet holes at the passenger side of the keep
2. Lethal firearms
3. Firing at the jeep instead of blocking their path or stopping the

Accused are law enforcers who mistakenly thought that the victims were NPAs. Victims were in fact just
employees of San Miguel Corp. While driving on the way home after a night of drinking, the victims
encountered the accused along the road. The accused signaled them to stop but they didn’t. So the accused
fired warning shots to which the victims accelerated instead. At this point, the accused started firing at the
fleeing vehicle resulting to the death of one of the victims and injuries to the rest.

Gaviola v. People (2006)

Mistake of Fact
Can be used as defense against criminal suits. However, in this case, the first element is lacking because:
1. Coconuts were not on his land but at the boundary between his and the complainant
2. Lands had been separated and distinguished from each other by the cadastral survey
3. Tax declarations that cover each land do not merge with, overlap, or cancel each other
4. One is residential while the other is coconut land
5. No witnesses to attest that petitioner has been harvesting coconuts in the past

People v. Guillen (1950)

Error in Personae
Where such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered
as reckless imprudence.

Guillen knew fully well that by throwing one of the hand grenades at President Roxas, he could not prevent the
persons who were around his main and intended victim from being killed or injured once the bomb exploded
due to the explosive nature of the bomb employed. He stated to the trial judge that he performed the act
voluntarily. He admitted that his purpose was to kill the President, but it did not make any difference if there
were some people around the President.

Accused had been planning to assassinate Pres. Roxas. Concealed two hand grenades in a paper bag. From
a distance of 7 meters from the platform where Pres was finishing his speech. Hurled grenade at the Pres.
General Castaneda who was also at the platform kicked the grenade. It flew towards an open space. It
exploded in the middle of a group. Group got injured. 1 died. 4 injured. Accused admitted to the crime.

RULING: Complex crime of murder and multiple attempted murder

People v. Adriano (2015)

Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus
Death of the other victim was unintentional and random. The means to kill her was by no means deliberate
because it was just a stray bullet. But under Article 4 of the RPC, the accused is still criminally liable for the
acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.

The aggravating circumstance of treachery should also be applied on account of aberratio ictus.
While driving a car, the accused began shooting the victim, who was also driving another car. The victim’s car
fell in the canal in the road embankment. 4 men then alighted from the accused’s car and started shooting at
the victim A stray bullet hit a bystander nearby. Both intended and collateral victims died as a result.

RULING: 2 separate counts of murder.

People v. Albuquerque (1933)

Doctrine of Praeter Intentionem
Lack of intent to cause grave injury or death should be taken into consideration as mitigating circumstance. In
crimes resulting from Prater intentionem, the penalty provided by Article 49 shall not be applied.

The accused’s daughter was impregnated by the victim, so the accused confronted the victim, bringing with
him a penknife. He had no intention of killing the victim. The penknife was just there to slightly injure the victim.
But due to his partial paralysis, the weapon landed on the base of the victim’s neck, killing the latter.

Accused invoked self-defense.

RTC RULING: no intent to cause grave injury/death

CA RULING: supported RTC

RULING: Should be penalized for the crime committed (Homicide) with mitigating circumstances.

Nacino v. Ombudsman (2019)

Proximate Cause
It is fundamental that criminal responsibility is personal and that in the absence of conspiracy, one cannot be
held criminally liable for the act or default of another. Here, the three private respondents have different
involvements in the operation. Hence, the existence of probable cause to charge them of reckless imprudence
must be assessed in accordance with their respective acts.

SAF 44 story.

RULING: Dismissed.

Without doubt, Napeñas had been negligent, as borne by both the Senate and PNP-BOI reports. However, We
find it difficult to isolate the effects of his negligence from the effects of all the other factors that contributed to
the loss of lives in the implementation of Oplan Exodus.
1. Lack of prior coord with AFP – apparent leak of info
2. Didn’t foresee the presence of MILF
3. Equipment failure
4. Terrain – difficulty for the support to come on time
In any case, to charge Napeñas with reckless imprudence would be to charge under his responsibility the
consequences of all incidents that contributed to the death of the 44 SAF members, even those beyond what
he and his team may or should have reasonably foreseen during the planning and execution of Oplan Exodus
— which is not fair. Moreover, it would pose a threat to future law enforcement undertakings if military and
police officials would be held susceptible to criminal charges for injury or death resulting from a legitimate
operation.

There is no perfect law enforcement operation. To the contrary, they are mostly idiosyncratic and risky. There
is no guarantee of police officers' safety even in developed countries possessed of sophisticated crime-fighting
technology.

Belbis v. People (2012)

Proximate Cause
Not Efficient intervening cause (IEC)

Accused’s argument: cause of death was multiple organ failure. 6 days after the stabbing incident. And not
the stabbing itself.

However, the stab wounds were said to be deep enough to have caused trauma on both kidneys. As a result, it
had caused an infection which later caused the multiple organ failure. Their act has accelerated or contributed
to the death of the victim.

Urbano v. IAC (1998)

Proximate Cause
There must be an absence of an Efficient Intervening Cause (IEC) to consider an act the proximate cause of
an injury/damage.

Accused and victim got into a fight. Injured the victim in the palm by a bolo (Oct. 22). Victim went fishing in a
shallow irrigation canal after a typhoon (Nov 5). Died a few weeks later from tetanus (Nov. 14). 22 days after
passed.

The Court looked into the nature of tetanus and based on a medical findings, the reaction to tetanus depends
on the incubation period of the disease. Severe tetanus has a short incubation period (2 or 3) while mild
tetanus has a longer incubation period (at least 14 days and an onset time of more than 6 days).

Death was brought by the victim’s own negligence or lack of precaution.

RULING: Acquitted.

Impossible Crimes – Article 4 (2) RPC

Intod v. CA (1992)
Impossible Crime:
1. Performed an act that would have been an offense against person or property
2. Were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means
3. But no offense was produced
Likewise, there must either be:
1. Legal impossibility
a. When all intended acts even if committed would not have amounted to a crime
2. Physical or Factual impossibility – THE CASE
a. Extraneous circumstances unknown or beyond the control of the offender prevented to produce
the crime
Accused and 4 other men went to the house of the intended victim with intent to kill her. They fired at the
bedroom, but it turned out that she was out of town. There were witnesses who saw the act.

RTC RULING: attempted murder

CA RULING: affirmed
- Absence of the intended victim was a supervening cause independent from the actor’s will
- This will render art 4 useless because all such cases would then be treated as an accident independent
from the will of the actor

Petitioner’s argument: the intended victim’s absence constitute an impossible crime

Respondent’s argument: facts were sufficient to constitute attempted murder
RULING: MODIFIED. Guilty of impossible crime. Penalty follows Art. 49.

People v. Seranilla (1988)

Impossible Crime
All acts/elements of theft and qualified theft were present in the case at bar. It is of no moment that there was
real or actual gain. The important consideration is that there was an intent to gain. It is one of the essential
elements of theft. (Legal impossibility)

Qualified theft of checks that turned out to have no commercial value. Accused were all employees of PAL that
had direct access to the cargo.

CONSPIRACY
Variance of the penalties does not prove that there was no conspiracy. Conspiracy implies concert of
design and not participation in every detail of execution.

PAL AIRLINE STORY

RULING: GUILTY of THEFT AND QUALIFIED THEFT

Jacinto v. People (2009)

Impossible Crime:
1. For the crime of qualified theft, the personal property subject of the theft should have some value.
2. However, the petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified theft. Intent to gain
proven by the actual taking of the check.
3. Accomplishment was impossible because the check was unfunded.
NOTE: Entrapment where petitioner received the marked money (which she thought was the cash
replacement for the dishonored check) is immaterial, for the acts before that already constituted the crime of
qualified theft. Further plans to have the check replaced with cash is a different and separate fraudulent
scheme.

Petitioner is an employee of Mega Foam. Customer handed a BDO check as payment for her purchases. The
check was deposited to the bank account of the petitioner’s brother-in-law instead of the account of Mega
Foam. Check bounced/dishonored. No value remitted to the account of the bro-in-law. Another employee
found out and was invited to join the scheme. However they were caught.

RTC RULING: Qualified Theft

CA RULING: Affirmed.

RULING: guilty of impossible crime

*No crime of frustrated qualified theft (like rape). Either you consummate or attempt it.

People v. Callao (1968)

Impossible Crime
1. the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. the act was done with evil intent;
3. that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual.
Conspiracy between the accused. One of the accused asked the victim for a lighter and while the latter’s
back was turned, the other accused hit him with a piece of firewood on the nape. While the victim was down,
the accused took a bolo and hacked the victim’s body. Victim lost consciousness, the other accused began
stabbing him (2) in the chest. The third accused sliced the victim’s chest open and took out his heart. The
rest started harvesting his other organs and fed them to a nearby pig. Cut the victim’s neck and sliced his
body into pieces.

Issue is on the third accused – impossible crime or murder?

RULING: DISMISSED
The court agrees with the CA: the victim’s fact of death before he was stabbed by petitioner was not sufficiently
established by the defense. While the witness testified that he thought the victim’s dead after being hacked by
Junello, this statement cannot sufficiently support the conclusion that, indeed, the victim was already dead
when petitioner stabbed him. Witness’ opinion of victim’s death was arrived at by merely looking at the body.
No other act was done to ascertain this, such as checking of the heartbeat or breathing.

More importantly, even assuming that it was Junello who killed Fernando and that the latter was already dead
when he was stabbed by the petitioner, the petitioner is still liable for murder because of the clear presence of
conspiracy between the petitioner and Junello. As such, Junello’s acts are likewise legally the petitioner’s acts.
(Conspiracy)

ARTICLE 8: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony – Conspiracy and

proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law
specially provides a penalty therefor.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement

concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Conspiracy Proposal
More than two people involved (bicameral act) Only one to decide (unilateral act)

General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable as an act
Exception: Unless the law specially provides for their penalty.

Conspiracy as a Crime
Law specifically classifies the acts of conspiring and proposal as crimes in itself. Not necessary for there to be
an overt act committed. (US v. Bautista (1906))
1. Treason (115)
2. Rebellion (136)
3. Sedition (141)
4. Monopolies and combinations n restraint of frauds (186)
5. Brigandage (306)
6. Corruption of Minors (340)
7. Terrorism

Conspiracy as Means of Committing a Crime

Not yet punishable. No criminal liability yet.

Elements (People v. Castilla)

1. Singularity of intent
 2. Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective

Kinds
1. Direct/express
2. Implied/inferred - People v. Vengco (1984)

Elements of Direct/Express
1. Prior agreement or preconceived plan
2. Presence at the time of the commission of the crime
NOTE: Failure to appear at the commission of the crime = desistance = not liable as conspirator

General Rule: Conspirators are liable only for the crime agreed upon. They are not liable for any crime which is
not agree upon.
Exceptions:
1. other crime was committed in the presence of the other conspirators and they did not perform acts to
prevent its commission
2. the other crime was the natural consequence of the crime agreed upon
3. resulting crime is a composite crime or special complex crime or a single indivisible complex crime

Penalty
- Act of one is the act of all
- All perpetrators have the same penalty
NOTE: If conspiracy was not established, then penalty will be individual in nature

US v. Bautista (1906)
WHEN CONSPIRACY IS CONSIDERED A CRIME
As a rule, conspiracy in itself is not a crime (based on the reason that a person might be entirely innocent of all
intention of joining the conspiracy, never having to authorize the conspirators to use his name or send such
commission to him). But where a genuine conspiracy is shown to have existed as in this case, and it is proven
that the accused voluntarily accepted an appointment as an officer in that conspiracy (to overthrow the
Government/treason), we think that this fact may properly be taken into consideration as evidence of his
relations with the conspirators.

Conspiracy to overthrow the US Government in the Philippines by force of arms and establish a gov’t to be
known as Republica Universal Democratica Filipina.
- Hatched in HongKong
- Perfected in Manila/PH
- Appellants were involved in the conspiracy
o Bautista was an intimate friend of the appointed chief of military forces of the conspirators
 Knew that his friend was coming to Manila from HK
 Forward his friend money for his return
 Present in several meetings where the plan was perfected
o Puzon was appointed to be brigadier-general
Puzon’s Defense:
- He had no intention of taking further actions
- Only accepted it since they were friends
- Just a joke
- Didn’t know that they were already organizing the conspiracy at that time
Court’s counter-argument:
Based on the record, it clearly discloses that the accused actually and voluntarily accepted the appointment in
question and in doing so assumed all obligation implied by such acceptance. This fact may properly be taken
into consideration as evidence of his relations with the conspirators.
RULING: the rest were convicted. Except for Aniceto de Guzman.
Ancieto de Guzman’s guilt rests substantially upon his acceptance of a number of bonds from one of the
conspirators, which were prepared by the conspirators’ purpose to raise funds to carry out the conspiracy.
He does not affirmatively appear that
(1) he knew anything of the existence of the conspiracy,
(2) when he received the wrapped and bundled bonds, he knew what the contents of the bundle were,
(3) assumed any obligation with respect to these bonds.
He stated that when he opened the bundle and discovered the nature of the contents, he destroyed them and
never had any dealings with the conspirators in relation to the conspiracy.

People v. Vengco (1984)

INFERRED/IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
General Rule: If it is proven that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, although apparently independent, were in fact
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment, a
conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them is proven (INFERRED/IMPLIED
CONSPIRACY)

OA must show
1. Two or more people
2. Aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful act (same aim)
3. Acts may appear independent but are in fact connected and cooperative (unity of acts)
4. Indicates closeness of personal association and concurrence of sentiment (unity of intent)

The conspiracy among therein appellants and their companions is easily discernible from their conduct. The
way in which they assaulted the victim and their conduct sometime before and immediately after the stabbing,
clearly show that they had agreed to kill him.

Night time. Victim alighted from a taxicab. 4-5 people (accused) approached and stabbed victim to death with
dagger, ice pick, and a pointed blade. Victim was held against the wall of a house while being stabbed. They
ran away after the stabbing. (Before the incident, the accused was said to have chased the victim and threw
bottles at him.) 11 stab wounds (5 fatal) – chest, abdomen and back.

1 – was with them during the drinking spree but was too drunk to participate in the crime
2 – departed from the group before the crime committed; saw them; shouted at them to stop; ran away to avoid
getting implicated
The rest – denied the allegation

People v. Valdez (1988)

LIABILITY OF CO-CONSPIRATORS
Conspiracy being present, it does not matter that the prosecution had failed to show who as between the two
actually pulled the trigger of the shotgun that killed the victim. Both Valdez and Orodio are liable as co-
conspirators since any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precise
degree of participation in the act.

The victim and his family were at home (yard & kitchen) minding their own business. House stands on the
slope of a mountain. The are was lighted with petromax lamp. Victim was playing the guitar with his back
toward the north. Upon standing up, victim was shot (8 gun wounds on the back). The shot came from the
north. Victim died immediately. Mother (yard) and brother (kitchen) looked toward the north and saw the 2
accused running down the hill and away from the bamboo grove near the house. One was armed while the
other was not. Accused was a neighbor and relative of the family.
Circumstantial Evidence:
1. Footprints found at the area where witnesses said that accused fled
2. Witnesses (mother and brother)
a. Saw the two accused fleeing the crime scene
b. Only one of the accused had a firearm (gunshot wounds from the victim)
c. But did not see either of the two fire at the victim (principal evidence is merely circumstantial in
character)
d. Described the clothing
3. Victim said that if something were to happen to him, the accused should be held responsible
a. Quarrel with them concerning their stealing and robbing
b. Accused had a personal grudge against victim
4. Accused were well-known by the family (no mistaken identity)

OSG’s argument:
Appellant Simplicio Orodio should be acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain this conviction either as
a principal or an accomplice.

Court’s counter
Orodio could not sufficiently explain what he was doing with the accused at the night of the murder. He had no
business of going there in the first place. Close friend to the accused. Pleaded the same alibi.

RULING: Both are guilty of murder

People v. Escober (1988)

"The fact that the accused was at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission is not, by itself, sufficient
to establish his criminal liability.”
Elements of Conspiracy (must be established beyond reasonable doubt – proved clearly and
convincingly)
1. knowledge of criminal design
2. acts performed were pursuant to said nefarious plot

“Well-established is the rule in this jurisdiction that whenever a homicide has been committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.”

Chua was owner of an electrical supply corporation. Escobar was a security guard of the company. While the
rest of the accused were former security guards. Escobar was assigned to the post. Victim went to the office
with his 2 children. Kids were watching TV while victim took a bath. Abuyen, Punzalan, and 2 other
companions knocked at the pedestrian door. Escobar opened it since he knew the others. Escobar was held at
gunshot. Punzalan waited outside. Others went in. There were gunshots. Chua went out and saw his son and
daughter mortally wounded and a bloodied scissor blade. Children dead on arrival at the hospital.

Chua’s wife on the way home. Saw Punzalan. Heard gunshot. Saw Abuyen and Escobar walking towards the
gate.

Conspiracy between security guards.

Escobar – the one assigned to guard the post; held at gun point daw
Chua – owner of the company; went to the company with his children; took a bath while children watched TV
Abuyen – former co-security guard (4 months prior)
Punzalan – instructed to wait outside
2 other companions
Chua’s wife – saw punzalan by their gate; heard gunshots
Chua’s children – sustained mortal wounds resulting to their death

RULING: Escobar not guilty of complex crime of robbery with homicide:

1. Escober had knowledge of the criminal design
2. acts performed were not pursuant to said nefarious plot
a. opening of the gate – innocent gesture – should be lax of better judgement – knew each other
b. Why didn’t abuyen kill him? abuyen didn’t tie him up or kill him because it would be risky – time
too short (unexpected arrival of Chua’s wife)
c. Only evidence: was behind Abuyen when they left the scene – but accuracy is doubtful due to
Chua’s wife’s mental condition
Punzalan guilty of complex crime of robbery with homicide:
1. Acts performed were pursuant to said nefarious plot
a. three companions would fetch him on the pretext of drinking beer and just bring him along to the
scene of crime,
b. flight from the scene of the crime
c. his failure, if he were truly innocent, to report to the police what he knew about the crime

People v. Elijorde (1999)

REQUISITES TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE IN A CONSPIRACY:
Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not
merely by conjecture. To convict him as a principal by direct participation in the instant case, it is necessary
that conspiracy between him and his co-accused Elijorde be proved:
1. community of design (knowledge of the criminal design/concurs with the latter’s purpose)
2. cooperation in the execution
3. relation between acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice
The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered which cannot
exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed.

In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising
from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that
each of the participants is liable only for his own acts.

Victim and companion went out to buy mango at a nearby sari-sari store. It was evening and they had been
drinking. The 2 accused and another companion (Menes) were in front of the store. Victim told Menes to not
touch him because his clothes might get dirty. Menes punch victim on the face. The other accused punched
and kicked the victim as well. Victim and his companion ran. Upon their return home, the 2 accused and
Menes were waiting for them. One of the accused kicked the victim. Victim tried running away but the other
accused overtook him and stabbed him and continued to do so even when victim was pleading for his life.
Punzalan was not present at the time of the killing. Menes remained at large. Victim died at the hospital.

Lacks 2 – only kicked the victim – kicking does not show concurrence - no evidence to show unity of purpose
and design
Lacks 1 no evidence to show that punzalan knows elijorde’s intent to kill or that the latter has a knife

RULING: Punzalan was acquitted from the crime of murder by reason of conspiracy with Elijorde.

Li v. People (2004)
PROOF FOR IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
It is difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous outburst of evidence, so it must be founded on facts,
not on mere inferences and presumption. Nonetheless, spontaneity alone does not preclude conspiracy – a
single word of assent to a proposal or a handshake can be considered as conspiracy.

General Rule: To establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not required. (Express and implied)
An implied conspiracy must still be based on facts established by positive and conclusive evidence. Even if
conspiracy per se is not criminal, as it rarely is in this jurisdiction, the weight of factual evidence necessary to
prove conspiracy is the same as required to establish criminal liability — proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Different versions.
1 version: Victim was at home watching TV with his sister, girlfriend, and sister’s boyfriend. Accused and
Sangalang were taking a bath completely naked facing the house. Victim and accused got into a fight. Victim
went out of the house to confront accused. Accused, with a baseball bat, hit victim causing the latter to fall.
Accused ran back to his house and emerged with a knife and stabbed victim. Sangalang also stabbed victim
once. Continued to chase the victim.

2 version: Night before, accused refused to drink with victim because of work next day. Accused was at home
w/ his friend and Sangalang. Victim and GF were hurling stones at his house and shouting invectives at him.
Accused shouted at victim. To which victim kicked the gate causing it to misalign. Victim ran back to his house
and brought with him two kitchen knives while accused fix gate. Accused fetched a baseball. They began
hitting each other. Victim acquired a bolo and hit accused until the latter passed out. Accused was hit with a
baseball by the lil sister’s BF.

RTC’s version: Accused hit victim first with baseball bat. Victim retaliated by hitting accused with bolo. Latter
lost consciousness. Sangalang then stabbed the victim several times, causing the latter’s death.

CA’s version: Accused might still have inflicted at least one fatal stab wound and so with Sangalang. Since it
has not been established which wound was inflicted by either one of them, they should both be held liable and
each one is guilty of homicide, whether or not a conspiracy exists.

SC’s version: Four participants in the brawl. Accused hit victim with a bat. Victim retaliated by hitting accused
with bolo. Accused lost consciousness. Sangalang stabbed victim at least 4 times. Tan (lil sis’s BF) hit accused
on the head with the bat.

Cause of death of victim: stab wounds of the chest and abdomen (multiple abrasions, incisions, contusions)

RULING: Li acquitted from the charge of homicide but guilty of slight physical injuries.

People v. Raguro (2019)

Conspiracy could not be deduced from his being merely present at the scene of the crime. He must be shown
at least to have committed an overt act that indicated his concurrence in the common criminal design to kill
their victims that had animated the attack by the others.

Overt Act - some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime... must have an
immediate and necessary relation to the offense.

Birthday party. Accused was drunk. Hurled invectives at victim and his companions. Victim asked accused to
leave. Accused returned with some companions in tow. All were armed with bladed weapons. Accused and his
companions demanded victim to come out. Upon doing so, each of the accused took turns stabbing victim.
Two of the accused stabbed another victim.
2 – victims; Avelino died; Manuel underwent surgery but survived
5 – accused; only 4 participated in the stabbing; Levie was only present but did not participate in the stabbing;
lend moral support to the other accused.

RTC: All 5 accused were guilty of murder and frustrated murder

CA: Same

RULING: Levie was acquitted