FELONIES AND

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES
 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.
Felony, offense, infraction and crime defined

A felony is an act and omission punishable by

the Revised Penal Code. While an offense is an
act or omission punishable by special penal laws.
An infraction is an act or omission punishable
by a provincial, city, or municipal ordinances.
On the other hand, crime is a generic term for
violation of the Revised Penal Code, special
penal laws, and ordinances.
 Elements of a felony

1. There must be an act or omission;

2. Such act or omission is punishable by the Revised
Penal Code; and
3. The act or omission was voluntarily done whether
by dolo or culpa.
 Felonies according to the means by
which they are committed

1. When the acts or the omission are performed

or incurred with deliberate intent or malice to
do an injury such are classified as
International Felonies.
 Requisites of dolo

a. The actor voluntarily committed or incurred the act

or omission. Thus, a person who acts under
compulsion of an irresistible force(Art. 12[5]), or
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury (Art. 12[6]) the person is
exempt from criminal liability.
b. The actor’s capacity to discern and understand the consequences of one’s
act. Hence, Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, as amended by R.A 10630
provides exemption from criminal liability to a child who is 15 years of age or
under, or a child who is above 15 but below 18 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense unless he or she had acted with discernment.
Likewise, an insane or imbecile person (Art. 12[1]) is exempted from criminal
liability.
c. The actor must have acted with
criminal intent. Thus, a person who has
acted under an honest mistake of fact
or those whose acts constitute an
accident (Art. 12[4]) is free from
criminal liability.
 Intent differentiated from motive

Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect

the result of the crime, while motive is the reason or
moving force which impels one to commit an act for a
definite result. Intent is always an essential element in
intentional felonies while the latter is not an essential
element to a crime.
Lack of motive does not preclude conviction when the crime and the
participation of the accused therein are definitely established. Motive becomes
relevant and its absence may assume determinative significance when the
accused has not been positively identified, and proof thereof becomes
essential only when evidence of the commission of the crime is purely
circumstantial or is inclusive.
2. When the acts or omission are performed or incurred
without malice then such are classified as Culpable
Felonies.

Reason for punishing acts of negligence

A man must use common sense and exercise due
reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
careful, and prudent.
Negligence and imprudence defined

Negligence indicates deficiency of perception: failure to pay proper

attention and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to
be caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence indicates deficiency of action: failure to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to a person or damage to property. Usually, it
involves lack of skill.
Difference between intentional and culpable
felonies
Intentional Culpable

Wrongful act is committed Act is committed without

with malice malice

Wrongful act is committed Injury caused is unintentional

with deliberate intent being an incident of another
act performed without
malice.
The actor has intention to Wrongful act results from
cause an injury imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight, or lack of skill.
Mistake of fact explained
A mistake of fact involves a misapprehension of fact on the
part of the person causing injury to another. Such person is not
criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.
A mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent
which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
While ignorance of the law excuses no one
(ignorantia lege neminem excusat), a
mistake of fact excuses the actor from
liability (ignorantia facti excusat).
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense

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; and
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
 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 person or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
 Criminal liability is incurred by a person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which the
person intended.
The rationale for the first paragraph of Article 4 is based on
the legal doctrine el que es causa de la causa del mal causado
which means, he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
evil caused.
 However, this principle applies
only to intentional crimes or those
crimes where intent is an element of
the crime. Hence, criminal
negligence and those punished as
mala prohibita are not covered by
the principle.
For the first paragraph of Article 4 to apply the
following requisites must be present:
1. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony committed.
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
 The first paragraph is inapplicable when the act or omission
is not punishable by the RPC. If the offender violates a special
penal law he may not have the intent to do any injury to another.
Likewise, the first paragraph is not applicable when the act is
covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Article 11 of
the RPC.
 The first paragraph covers an act of a person
creating in another person’s mind an immediate
sense of danger, which causes the latter to do
something resulting in the latter’s injuries. The
offender is liable for the resulting injuries.
 That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed. It is therefore imperative that the relation of
cause and effect must show that the felonious act be the
proximate cause or an accelerated cause.
 In People v. Likiran, the Court ruled
that the offender is criminally liable for
the death of the victim if his delictual
act caused, accelarated, or contributed
to the death of the victim.
 Proximate cause, accelarating cause and efficient
intervening cause defined

Proximate cause is defined as that which, in natural and

continuous sequence, unbroken by any new cause, produces an
event, and without which, the event would not have occurred.
Accelerating cause is any cause that sped up the result of the
death or injury even if it is nit the direct cause of such injury or
death.
 Efficient intervening cause is any cause
intervening between the first wrongful
cause and the final injury which might
reasonably have been foreseen or
anticipated by the original wrongdoer.
 Application of Article 4
1. A person is still criminally liable 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:
Error in personae involves a mistake in the identity
of the victim.
Example: The chief of police and a member of the constabulary were
instructed to arrest an escaped convict. They proceeded to the suspected house
and there they saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door. The two
accused successively fired without making any inquiry as to the identity of the
unknown man. It turns out that it was an innocent person that was killed. The
two accused were convicted for the crime of murder.
 Abberatio ictus means mistake in the blow, thereby
hitting a different and/or another victim.
Example: The accused discharged his firearm targeting A
but because of his lack of precision, the accused hit B
instead that caused B’s death. The accused was convicted
for homicide.
 Praeter intentionem involves an injurious result that is greater
that that intended.
Example: A had a fight with B. The fatal blow was struck by A at
the time B was running away. The blow caused B to fall on the
pavement and later on suffered cerebral hemorrhage. A was held
liable for the death of B although he had no intent to kill.
 Nota Bene: For praeter intentionem to be considered
a mitigating circumstances, there must be notable
disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony. It must be shown that generally, the felony does
not result from the means employed by the offender.
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.
Impossible crime explained

Impossible crime is a crime which would have constituted

an offense against person or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means. The reason for punishing
impossible crimes is to quell the criminal tendencies of
individuals.
Requirements for the existence of an 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; and
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
The concept of inherent impossibility of accomplishment can be classified into
two:

1. Legal impossibility- where the intended acts, even if completed would

not amount to a crime.
Example: Stealing property that turned out to be owned by the thief.
2. Physical impossibility- when extraneous circumstances unknown to be
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Example: When one tries to murder a person who was already dead.
Other Examples:
• Employment of inadequate means- the accused tried to kill his intended victim by
poisoning but the amount of poison he put in the drink was not sufficient to cause
death.
• Employment of inefficient means- the accused tried to shoot the victim point blank
in the head but the bullet turned out to be a dud.
 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 reason which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the subject of penal 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.
 The article recognizes the fact that the courts could not alter the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code since it would be tantamount to judicial
legislation. The courts of law have no choice but to implement the letter of the
law despite the magistrates’ personal view of the case. Hence, this article
provides for two legal mechanisms to remedy the magistrates’ perceived
injustice:
1. The first scenario involves a situation wherein the accused committed the crime
subject of the indictment but there is no law that punishes the act. In this case, the
judge has no choice but to acquit the accused based on the principle nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege. The judge could, however write to report to the
Chief Executive through the Department of Justice, that the act should be the
subject of a penal legislation.
1. The second instance covers a situation wherein the court finds the accused guilty of the
crime charged but the magistrate feels that the penalty prescribed by the law is excessive,
taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. The
judge has no option but to impose the proper penalty regardless of his personal view on the
matter. The judge, however, could recommend that the Chief Executive through the
Department of Justice extend an executive clemency.

Nota Bene: The provision of paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special penal
laws.
 STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A
FELONY

ARTICLE 6. consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.- Consummated felonies,

as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly 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.
The stages of execution of felonies defined

A felony is CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary

for its execution and accomplishment are present.
A felony is FRUSTRATED when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
Requisites of frustrated felony
1. That the offender performs all the acts of
execution.
2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence.
3. But the felony is not produced by reason of
causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
 A felony is ATTEMPTED when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Requisites of attempted felony

1. That the offender commits an overt act to commence the perpetration of a

felony;
2. That the offender is not able to perform all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony; and
3. That his failure of the offender to do so was due to some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Indeterminate state
One where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is
not yet certain. The accused may be convicted for a felony
defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of
desistance. If the act is susceptible of having two or more
interpretations the interpretation that is more favorable to the
accused shall be charged.
Stages of execution compared
Attempted Frustrated Consummated

Offender commences the Offender has performed all Offender has performed all
commission of the crime the acts of execution which acts of execution which
directly by overt acts. would produce the felony would produce the felony
as a consequence. as a consequence.

The accomplishment of the The accomplishment of the The felony was already
criminal design is a cause criminal design is a cause produced by the offender.
in which the offender had in which the offender had
no part. no part.

The subjective phase has The objective phase had Both the subjective and
not been reached by the been reached by the objective phases had been
offender offender reached by the offender.
Subjective phase compared to objective phase

The SUBJECTIVE PHASE is the portion of the

acts constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the crime and the last
act performed by the offender which, with prior acts,
should result in the consummated crime. From that time
forward, the phase is objective.
While the OBJECTIVE PHASE is that period occupied the acts
of the offender over which he has control- that period between
the point where he begins and the point where he voluntary
desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is
merely an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he
performs the last act, it is frustrated.
 Desistance in the attempt stage has
absolutory effect
One who takes part in the planning of a criminal act
but desists on its actual commission is exempt from
criminal liability for after taking part in the planning he
could have desisted from taking part in the actual
commission of the crime by listening to the call of his
conscience.
 When the action of the felony starts and the accused, because of fear or
remorse desist from its continuance, there is no attempt. If the author of the
attempt, after having commenced to execute the felony by external acts, stops
by a free and spontaneous feeling, on the brink of the abyss, he is saved. It is a
call to repentance, the conscience, a grace, a pardon which the law grants to
voluntary repentance.
 Manner of committing the crime

1. FORMAL CRIMES are consummated

in one instance, no attempt. There are
crimes, like slander and false testimony,
which are consummated in one instance, by
a single act. These are formal crimes
 As a rule, there can be no attempt in a formal crime
because between the thought and the deed, there is no
chain of acts that can be severed in any link. Thus, in
slander, there is either a crime or no crime at all,
depending upon whether or not defamatory words were
spoken publicly.
2. MATERIAL CRIMES involve
three stages of execution such as in the
crimes of homicide, rape, etc., which
are not consummated in one instance
or by a single act. These are the so-
called material crimes.
 Although material felonies admit of stages in
the commission, it does not mean that the three
stages apply. Three criteria must be considered:
a. The manner of committing a felony;
b. The element of the felony; and
c. The nature of the felony itself.
ARTICLE 7. When light felonies are
punishable.- Light felonies are
punishable only when they have
been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against
person or property.
 Article 9(3) of the RPC, defines light
felonies as are those infractions of law
for the commission of which the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or both
is provided.
 Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, except those against person or property. Hence,
light felonies committed against person or property are punished
even if in the attempt or frustrated stages. Likewise, accessories
to light felonies are no longer punished in Article 16 of the RPC.
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 had decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
 There is conspiracy when two or
more persons come to an
agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.
Requisites of conspiracy

1. Two or more persons came to an

agreement;
2. The agreement pertained to the
commission of a felony; and
3. The execution of the felony was
decided upon
Rules in conspiracy

1. The act of one is the act of all

2. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence not
only necessarily just by direct evidence.
3. The nature of the crime should likewise be considered as the
title of the criminal indictment may vary as to the
conspirators.
 There is proposal when the person who had decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
As a general rule, mere proposal to commit a crime
is not punishable except in:
1. Treason (Art. 115)
2. Rebellion, insurrection, coup d’etat (Art. 136)
Requisites of proposal

1. Two or more persons came to an

agreement;
2. The agreement pertained to the
commission of a felony; and
3. The execution of the felony was
decided upon.
Nota Bene: Under Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020,
any person who proposes to commit terrorism as defined in
Section 4 of the law shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
12 years. Section 49 of the same law provides for an
extraterritorial application of the crime proposal to commit
terrorism.
ARTICLE 9. Grave felonies. less grave felonies
and light felonies.- Grave felonies are those
which the law attaches the capitol punishment
or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of this
Code.
 Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which
in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the
abovementioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000) or both is provided. (As amended by Republic Act No. 10951,
August 29, 2017)
 The classification of the felonies into
grave, less grave or light felonies is
necessary to determine the prescription of
the crime and prescription of the penalty,
and to ascertain whether such crimes may
be complexed.
 Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of the Revised Penal
Code, namely:
1. Reclusion perpetua
2. Reclusion temporal
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
4. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification.
5. Prision mayor
 Less grave felonies are those which the law punished
with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with Article 25 of the
Revised Penal Code as follows:
1. Prision correctional
2. Arresto mayor
3. Suspension
4. Destierro
 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission
of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
(P40,000) or both is provided: and those punishable by light
penalties under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:
1. Arresto Menor
2. Censure
ARTICLE 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions
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.
 The provision of Article 10 provides that crimes punishable under special penal laws are not
subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Nonetheless, the Code shall be supplementary
applied to the provisions of the law. However, the special penal laws may specifically provide that
the Code cannot be applied supplementary. Likewise, the supplementary nature of the Code to
special penal laws may not be used in instances where it is of impossible application.
 FOR CASE DIGEST 2

1) PEOPLE vs. Sarino, G.R. Nos. 94992-93 April 7, 1993 (Motive)

2) U.S. v. Ah Ching, G.R.No. L-5272, March 9, 1910 (Mistake of Fact)
3) People vs. Bayambao, G.R. No. 29481, October 3, 1928 (Mistake of
Fact)
4) People vs. Likiran, G.R. No. 201858, 04 June 2014 (Art. 4, RPC)
5) Dela Cruz vs. Viano, G.R.No. 219649, July 26, 2017 (Proximate cause)
6) People vs. Ulep, G.R.No. L-36858, June 20, 1988 (Accelerating cause)
7) Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Corporation G.R.No. 164749, March 15,
2015 (Efficient intervening cause)
8.) People vs. Oanis, G.R.No. L-47722, July 27, 1943 (Error in
personae)
9.) Talampas vs. People, G.R.No. 180219, November 23, 2011
(Abberatio ictus)
10.) People vs. Cagoco, G.R.No. L-38511, October 6, 1933 (Praeter
intentionem)
11.) Intod vs. CA, G.R.No. 103119, October 21, 1922 (Impossible
Crime)
12.) Jacinto vs. People, G.R.No. 162540, July 13, 2009 (Impossible
Crime)
13.) Valenzuela vs. People, G.R.No. 160188, June 21, 2007 (Frustrated
Theft)
14.) People vs. Orita, G.R.No. 88724, April 3, 1990 (Frustrated Rape)
15.) People vs. Velose, G.R.No. L-38551- 53, 27
February 1987