TRANSFERRED INTENT (ART. 4 PAR.

1): ABERRATIO ICTUS

FACTS:
Julio Guillen has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections, the opponent of Manuel
A. Roxas, held in 1946. According to Guillen, he became disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged
failure to redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during the presidential election
campaign. Hence, he determined to assassinate the President.

Guillen planned of going to Malacañan, or fo llowing his intended victim in the latter's trips to
provinces but he thought of it to be unsuccessful. But on March 10, 1947, when at a popular meeting
held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila attended by a big crowd, he had the
perfect chance for the assassination. Guillen had first intended to use a revolver for the accomplishment
of his purpose, but having lost said firearm, which was duly licensed, he thought of two hand grenades
which were given him by an American soldier in the early days of the liberation of Manila in exchange
for two bottles of whisky.

Guillen was carrying the two grenades in a paper bag which also contained peanuts. He buried one in a
plant box near the platform and the other one he holds. Right after the speech of Roxas, he hurled the
grenade at the President. General Castañeda kicked it away from the platform, along the stairway, and
towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was likely to do the least harm. It was
there when the grenade exploded, in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the
platform. As a result, Simeon Varela died.

Guillen was arrested with the help of a witness stating that he is the one who hurled the grenade. The
Court of First Instance rendered the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
of Simeon Valera and multiple frustrated murders of the said victims including the President.

ISSUE:
Does aberratio ictus exempt the offender from criminal liability?

HELD:
No. The facts do not support the contention of the counsel for the defendant. The mere throwing of the
grenade at the President with the intention of killing him shows that the appellant acted with malice and
is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act. As provided by Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, "criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended." The injury caused to another should be unintentional and
without malice for it to be considered as criminal negligence. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is
essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such unlawful act is willfully done,
a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered reckless imprudence.
TRANSFERRED INTENT (ART. 4 PAR. 1): ERROR IN PERSONAE
14. The People of the Philippines vs. Rolasupe Sabalones, Artemio Belonga, et. al.
G.R. No. 123485, August 31, 1998.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Error in personae (Mistaken identity) - is a Latin term that means “error of the person”. It
refers to a mistake of a person’s identity.

FACTS:
Edwin Santos, a witness, stated that he was at the residence of Rogelio and Inday Presores at Rizal Ave.,
Cebu City at 6 o'clock pm to attend a wedding. He then went to the house of Maj. Tiempo where a small
gathering was also taking place. There, he saw Nelson Tiempo, Glenn Tiempo, Rogelio Presores, Rogelio
Oliveros, Junior Villoria, Rey Bolo, and Alfredo Nardo. Stephen Lim, who was also at the party, called the
group and asked them to drive his car to his house in Mansueto Compound, Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. Nelson
Tiempo drove Lim's car while Alfredo Nardo drove an owner-type jeep in order to bring them back as a
group.

The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep 3 to 4 meters ahead of the car. When they arrived at
the gate of the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden burst of gunfire. He looked at the
direction where the gunfire came, and identified the persons who fired at the jeep. The shooting incident
led to the death of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo, and fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo and
Rogelio Presores.

Rolusape Sabalones was recognized as one of those who fired at the jeep. Teodulo Alegarbes, Timoteo
Beronga and another person, whom he recognized only through his facial appearance. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's Decision convicting appellants of two counts of murder and three counts
of frustrated murder. The respondents appealed, thus the case at bar

ISSUE:
Does aberratio ictus apply in the case at bar?

HELD:
No. The case is not one of aberratio ictus but one of error in personae or mistaken identity. Aberratio ictus
means mistake in the blow or accidental harm to a person while error in personae means "mistaken
identity" or error of the person. The former may be characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other
due to an imprecise shot. In the case at bar, the respondents executed an ambush knowing that their
supposed targets were inside the vehicles they attacked. In addition to this, the place was well-lit;
therefore, the faces are clearly seen at the time. Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the
circumstances that the crime was done at night time and that the accused hid themselves among the
bamboo. The Supreme Court held that mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when
the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
TRANSFERRED INTENT (ART. 4 PAR. 1): ABERRATIO ICTUS
15. The People of the Philippines vs. Gines Alburquerque y Sanchez
G.R. No. 38773, December 19, 1933.
AVANCEÑA, J.:
Praeter Intentionem (injurious result is greater than that intended) - it is the lack of intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The injury is on the intended victim but the
resulting consequences is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It happens when
somebody already was planning to do something bad but his actions ended up producing
something worse.

FACTS:
A certain Manuel Osma (deceased) was stabbed in the neck by the defendant-apellant, Albuquerque
causing his death. The judgement appealed from finds the Apellant GInes Albuquerque guilty of the crime
of homicide. He was sentenced to eight (8) years prision mayor, and to indemnify the heirs with the sum
of P1000.00.

The apellant herein who is a widower of 55 years of age and father of the nine living children, has been
suffering from partial paralysis for some time. He has lost control of the movement of his right arm which
he claims in defense led to the excessive force which killed Manuel Osma. He claims to have aimed to
injure his face but

Pilar, one of the daughters had intimate relations with the deceased. The relations between them
culminated and led to Pilar giving birth. The apellant did not know that his daughter’s relations had gone
to such extremes, that he had to be deceived with the information that she had gone to her grandfather’s
house in Salonga, when in fact she had been taken to a Chinese hospital for delivery.

Naturally the appellant was deeply affected by this. Not only because of the dishonor it brought on the
family but also the added burden on Maria, one of his daughters upon whom they all depended for
support.

He wrote letters, that at times were hostile and threatening, imploring Manuel Osma to marry Pilar or at
least support her and his child. Though the deceased agreed to give the child a monthly allowance, he
never complied with his promise.

The appellant was such in a mood that went to the office of the deceased Osma, asked leave from his
manager and both went downstairs. No one witnessed the event happened after, but the undisputed fact
is that the appellant inflicted a wound at the base of the neck of Osma, causing his death.

The court inferred from the appellant’s testimony he proposed to said deceased to marry his daughter
and that, upon hearing that the latter refused to do so, he whipped out his penknife. Upon seeing the
appellant's attitude, the deceased tried to seize him by the neck whereupon the said appellant stabbed
him on the face with the said penknife. Due to his lack of control of the movement of his arm, the weapon
landed on the base of the neck of the deceased. Appellant alleged that he did not intend to cause so
grave an injury as the death of the deceased.

The defense claims that at all events, article 49 of the Revised Penal Code (Replication of article 64 of the
Old Code). It has been interpreted as applicable only in cases where the crime committed befalls a
different person.

ISSUE:
Did the appellant act in self-defense or is guilty with the crime of homicide?

HELD:
No. The facts herein proven constitute that the crime of homicide defined in the Revised Penal Code
with reclusion temporal. In view of the concurrence therein of three mitigating circumstances without
any aggravating circumstance, the penalty next lower in degree that is prision mayor (affirmed decision),
should be imposed