ACT NO.

3815
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
(December 8, 1930)

PRELIMINARY ARTICLE — This law shall be known as "The Revised Penal Code."

Criminal Law – is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment.

Crime – is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or

commanding it.

SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW

(1) The Revised Penal Code Act (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
(2) Special Penal Laws

LEGAL BASIS OF PUNISHMENT

The power to punish violators of criminal law comes within the police power of the state.
It is the injury inflicted to the public which a criminal action seeks to redress, and not the
injury to the individual.

The objective of the punishment is two-fold:

1. absolute, and
2. relative.

The absolute theory is to inflict punishment as a form of retributive justice. It is to

destroy wrong in its effort to annihilate right, to put an end to the criminal activity of the
offender.

On the other hand, the relative theory purports to prevent the offender from further
offending public right or to the right to repel an imminent or actual aggression,
exemplary or by way of example to others not to follow the path taken by the offender
and ultimately for reformation or to place him under detention to teach him the
obligations of a law-abiding citizen.

POWER TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws. While the President
may define and punish an act as a crime, such exercise of power is not executive but
legislative as he derives such power from the law-making body. It is in essence, an
exercise of legislative power by the Chief Executive.

Police Power – “is the power vested in the legislature of the state to make, ordain, and
establish laws... for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of
the state.” (People v. Pomar)

Limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws

 Must be general in application

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 1

  Must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law
 Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder
 Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines

Limitations on the Power of the Lawmaking Body to Enact Legislation

The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations:

(1) No ex post facto law or bill of attainder;

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

 An ex post facto law is one which:

(a) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law;
(b) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed;
(c) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed
to the crime when committed;
(d) alters the legal rules of evidence;
(e) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only; and,
(f) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which become
entitled.

 A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides for the following rights:

1. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases;
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law;
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law;
4. The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 1, Rule 115, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides the
entitlement of the accused:
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt;
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings;
4. To testify as a witness in his behalf;
5. To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself;
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial;
7. To have compulsory process issued to secure attendance of witness of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf;
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial; and,
9. To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 2

A right which may be waived is the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-
examination. A right which may not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Rights which may be waived are personal, while those rights which may not be waived
involve public interest which may be affected.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. General – in that criminal is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in

Philippine territory;
2. Territorial – in that criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within
Philippine territory; and,
3. Prospective – in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in
which it was not punishable when committed.

GENERAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Generality of criminal law means that the criminal law of the country governs all
persons within the country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed.
However, it is subject to certain exceptions brought about by international
agreement.

As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military
character of the accused.

The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when the military court
takes cognizance of the case. A court-martial is a court, and the prosecution of the
accused of the same offense before it is a criminal not an administrative case, and
therefore it would be a bar to another prosecution because the latter would place the
accuse in double jeopardy.

Offenders accused of crimes of war are triable by military commission.

Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law:

(a) Principles of public international law

(b) Treaties – e.g. the Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the US;
(c) Laws of Preferential Application – e.g. RA 75 in favor of diplomatic
representatives and their domestic servants;

Persons exempt from the operation of criminal laws by virtue of the principles of
public international law:

(a) sovereigns and other chiefs of state; and,

(b) ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges
d'affaires.

A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister,

but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited.

TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 3

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have force and effect only
within its territory. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the same. This is
subject to certain exceptions brought about by international agreements and
practice.

The Archipelagic Rule – all bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and
interior waters abounding different islands comprising the Philippine Archipelago
are part of the Philippine territory regardless of their breadth, depth, width or
dimension.

What Determines Jurisdiction in a Criminal Case?

1. Place where the crime was committed;

2. The nature of the crime committed; and
3. The person committing the crime.

Extent of Philippine Territory for Purposes of Criminal Law

 The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty resides
but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.

 Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.

 Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime and interior waters.
 Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the atmosphere.

Classification of Vessels

(1) Foreign public vessels – war vessels/war ships (ex. Lawton Ship in US vs.
Fowler). War vessels are considered to be an extension of the nationality of the
owner of said vessel and cannot be subjected to the laws of the state

(2) Foreign merchant vessels – more or less subjected to the territorial laws.

Note: The state is not obligated to give immunity on crimes done in foreign public
vessels. This is just a matter of comity.

The offense is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines when the forbidden
conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial waters, regardless of the
fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and
while it was on the high seas (US vs. Bull, 15 Phil 17).

Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is

triable before our court.

Rules as to Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed Aboard Foreign Merchant

Vessels

1. French Rule – crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the
state is endangered.

2. English Rule – crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things
within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.

In this country, we observe the English Rule. Thus, disorders which disturb only the
peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty
of the home of the ship.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 4

Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board foreign
warships in territorial waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the
country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state.

Note: In the Philippines, we observe the English rule

Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law is found in Art. 2 of the

Revised Penal Code. Those who:

(1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

(2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
(3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number;
(4) While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
(5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Preliminary Title

DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION

OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

HISTORY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

This Code is called “Revised Penal Code,” because the Committee which was created
by Administrative Order No. 94 of the Department of Justice, dated October 18, 1927
was instructed to revise the old Penal Code, taking into consideration the existing
conditions, the special penal laws and the rulings laid down by the Supreme Court.

The old Penal Code took effect on July 14, 1887, and was in force up to December 31,
1931.

The Revised Penal Code was approved on December 8, 1930, and took effect on
January 1, 1932.

THE REVISED PENAL CODE CONSISTS OF TWO (2) BOOKS

1. Book One – consists of two parts: (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability
(Arts. 1-20), and (b) the provisions on penalties including criminal and civil
liability (arts. 21 – 113); and,
2. Book Two – defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and
grouped under fourteen (14) different titles (Arts. 114 – 365).

Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first
day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.

TWO THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. The classical theory

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 5

 2. The positivist theory

CHARACTERISTICS OF CLASSICAL THEORY

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

CHARACTERISTICS OF POSITIVIST THEORY

(1) That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrains him to do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition;

(2) That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon,... treated and
checked through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case
after thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent
body of psychiatrists and social scientists.

 The purpose of penalty is reformation. There is great respect for the human
element because the offender is regarded as socially sick who needs treatment,
not punishment. Crimes are regarded as social phenomena which constrain a
person to do wrong although not of his own volition

ECLECTIC OR MIXED PHILOSOPHY

This combines both positivist and classical thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social and nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
capital punishment.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

Doctrine of Pro Reo

Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.

This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in
favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused.
This is peculiar only to criminal law.

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil law
countries, but not to common law countries.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 6

Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No matter
how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.

Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the community/society condemns as
contemptible, even though there is no law declaring the act criminal.

Not any law punishing an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.

Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory

The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the protection of society
from actual and potential wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for
the wronged society, should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers,
since criminal law is directed against acts and omissions which the society does not
approve. Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle which punishes an
offense regardless of malice or criminal intent, should not be utilized to apply the full
harshness of the special law.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally
means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand,
violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

Note, however, that not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While
intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under
a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in
se, and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it
is the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

Likewise when the special laws requires that the punished act be committed knowingly
and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.

When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes
the same.

For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and the
special law punishing brigandage in the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and
although they are punished under special law, the acts themselves are mala in se; thus,
good faith or lack of criminal intent is a defense.

Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita

Crimes mala in se Crimes mala prohibita

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 7

 Those so serious in their effects on Those violations of mere rules of
society as to call for almost convenience designed to secure a more
unanimous condemnation of its orderly regulation of the affairs of society
members;
Criminal intent necessary Criminal intent is not necessary
Refers generally to felonies defined Refers generally to acts made criminal
and penalized by the Revised Penal by special laws
Code

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and crimes
punished under special laws

1. As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender
is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is dolo or culpa in
the commission of the punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws, the moral trait of the offender is not
considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

2. As to use of good faith as defense

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the result of culpa

In crimes punished under special laws, good faith is not a defense

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree of

accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in punishing the offender;
thus, there are attempted, frustrated, and consummated stages in the
commission of the crime.

In crimes punished under special laws, the act gives rise to a crime only when it
is consummated; there are no attempted or frustrated stages, unless the special
law expressly penalize the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account in imposing the penalty since the moral
trait of the offender is considered.

In crimes punished under special laws, mitigating and aggravating circumstances

are not taken into account in imposing the penalty.

5. As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there is more than one
offender, the degree of participation of each in the commission of the crime is
taken into account in imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as
principal, accomplice and accessory.

In crimes punished under special laws, the degree of participation of the

offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized
to the same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 8

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws
of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine

Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in

the exercise of their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law
of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE WHILE ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP

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

But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime
committed on said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.

The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on the high
seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines.

WHILE BEING A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, SHOULD COMMIT AN

OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS

The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are cognizable by the Regional
Trial Court in which the charge is filed.

As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions, those having to do with the
discharge of their duties in a foreign country. The functions contemplated are those,
which are, under the law, to be performed by the public officer in the Foreign Service of
the Philippine government in a foreign country.
Exception: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime was committed within the
Philippine Embassy or within the embassy grounds in a foreign country. This is
because embassy grounds are considered an extension of sovereignty.

Title One

FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 9

 WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter One

FELONIES

Art 3. Definitions. -- 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 results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.

Acts – an overt or external act

Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law.

To be considered as a felony there must be an act or omission; a mere imagination no

matter how wrong does not amount to a felony. An act refers to any kind of body
movement that produces change in the outside world.

In felony by omission however, there must be a law requiring the doing or the
performance of an act. Thus, mere passive presence at the scene of the crime, mere
silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy is not
punishable.

Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of

dying or is in an uninhabited place or is wounded - abandonment.

Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Offense- crimes punished under special law
Misdemeanor- minor infraction of law, such as violation of ordinance
Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES AS TO HOW THEY ARE COMMITTED:

 by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent.

Requisites:
freedom
intelligence
intent
 Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.

 by means of fault (culpa) - There is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

imprudence - deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He

hit B because it was raining - reckless imprudence.

Negligence - deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger,

usually involves lack of foresight

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 10

 Requisites:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
4. Lack of intent

FELONY BY MEANS OF DOLO (CRIMINAL INTENT)

Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use deceit in translating dolo, because the nearest
translation is deliberate intent.

Criminal intent is not necessary in the following cases:

(a) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill;
(b) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum
prohibitum.

Distinction between intent and discernment

Intent – is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is

the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.

Discernment – is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence as an
element of dolo, distinct from intent.

Distinction between intent and motive

Intent – is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result
– it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.

Motive – implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When
there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a
crime may be committed without motive.

Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not on the basis if what the offender says.

Motive, in prosecution, is pertinent only when there is doubt as to the identity of

the culprit; However, in defense, it may be an aid in showing the innocence of the
accused.

MISTAKE OF FACT

It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to

another. He is not criminally liable.

Requisites of Mistake of Fact

1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 11

 3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or
through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product
of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.

It exists when a person who in the exercise of due diligence, acts under the influence of
an erroneous appreciation of facts, which if true would relieve him from criminal
responsibility.

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against

persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

BY ANY PERSON COMMITTING A FELONY, ALTHOUGH THE WRONGFUL ACT

DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED

In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:

1. A felony committed; and

2. The felony committed resulted in the commission of another felony.

The requirement however, must be, that the resulting other felony or felonies must be
direct, material and logical consequence of the felony committed even if the same is not
intended or entirely different from what was in the mind of the offender.

Requisites In Order That a Person May Be Held Liable For A Felony Different
From That Which He Intended

1. Intentional felony has been committed; and

2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is not punishable by the Revised
Penal Code, or (2) when the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances

Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural
order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which
would necessarily produce the event.

Requisites:

a. the direct, natural, and logical cause

b. produces the injury or damage

c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 12

 d. without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate Cause is negated by:

a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of
the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.

b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Requisite for Presumption that the blow was cause of the death – Where there has
been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person,
the presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:

a. victim was in normal health

b. death ensued within a reasonable time

Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the
wound inflicted is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the
actor is liable. This is true even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous
or unskillful medical treatment, refusal of the victim to submit to surgical operation, or
that the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis, heart disease or other internal
malady or that the resulting injury was aggravated by infection.

There must however be no efficient intervening cause.

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of
the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
felonious act.

Proximate cause – is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which
unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such
felony could not have resulted.

As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his
felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the
felony or resulting felony.

A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause
which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes
which resulted in the felony.

In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the
victim, even if the victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of
putting to death that victim.

If a man creates in another's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes

such person to try to escape, and in so doing injures himself, the person who
creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury

 When there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and
the resulting injury; and,

 When the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 13

If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
from the criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such consequences. Thus,
where a person struck another with his fist and knocked him down and a horse near
them jumped upon him and killed him, the assailant was not responsible for the death of
that person.

A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a

new charge without double jeopardy (People vs. Petilla, 92 Phil. 395).

Causes which Produce Different Result

1. Mistake in the identity of the victim;

2. Mistake in the blow (that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another; and

3. the act exceeds the intent.

Mistake in identity of the victim

Injuring one person who is mistaken for another e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he
instead shot C because he (A) mistook C for B.

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the
actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended
victim

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was
intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in
personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.

In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but
on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply
and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a
mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more
serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime
intended.

Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus)

It is hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances
(this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking together. A wanted
to shoot B, but he instead injured C.

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor
aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well
as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

Generally, aberratio ictus results in at least two felonies:

(1) attempted felony on the intended victim;

(2) felony on the unintended victim.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 14

Hence, complex crime may arise.

Complex crime – a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies.

If the actor intended the commission of several felonies with a single act, it is not called
aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, simply because there was no mistake.

Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but
he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is
important because the legal effects are not the same.

In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because
of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the
resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as
against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual
victim. If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex. In
other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the
penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

Praeter Intentionem (Injurious result is greater than that intended)

It is causing injury graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance

due to lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure
B. However, B died.

In praeter intentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the

means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This
means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. If the
resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the
circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply.

Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose
of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of
attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder.
But once the victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence
of intent to kill is the fact that victim was killed.

When felony committed not proximate cause

1. Intervening active force, which is distinct and absolutely foreign to felonious

act of accused

(a) Resulting injury is due to intentional act of victim

(b) Death attributable to fever prevalent in locality

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME: BY ANY PERSON PERFORMING AN ACT WHICH WOULD

BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST PERSON OR PROPERTY, WHERE IT NOT FOR THE
INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE
EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL MEANS

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 15

Impossible Crime – which would be an offense against person or property were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Requisites of Impossible Crime

 Act would have been an offense against persons or property

 Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special

penal law

 There was criminal intent

 Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means

were employed.

Notes:
 Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man
stabbing another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an
impossible crime.

 The law intends to punish the criminal intent.

 There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.

Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.

Inherent impossibility:
A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A shot B. A is liable. If A
knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

Inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could
not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of
facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would
be an attempted felony.

Nature of Impossibility

1. Legal impossibility
2. Physical or factual impossibility

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even if completed, would not amount
into a crime.

Factual impossibility occurs when an extraneous circumstances is unknown to the actor

or beyond his control to prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

Under Art. 4, par. 2, the law does not make any distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility. (pp vs. intod)

 Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived

because A used small quantities of poison - frustrated murder.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 16

 Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A is liable.

The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson
because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but
subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is
prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable
under the RPC.

By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or

not committed at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. At
this stage, it would be best to distinguish impossible crime from attempted or frustrated
felony. The evil intent is attempted or frustrated felony is possible of accomplishment,
while in impossible crime, it cannot be accomplished because of its inherent
impossibility. In attempted or frustrated felony, what prevented its accomplishment is the
intervention of a certain cause or accident independent of the will of the perpetrator or
offender.

Unconsummated felonies (Attempted and frustrated felonies) vs. Impossible

crimes

Attempted of Frustrated Felony Impossible Crime

Intent is not accomplished Intent is not accomplished
Intent of the offender possible of Intent of the offender, cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
Accomplishment is prevented by the Intent cannot be accomplished
intervention of certain cause or because it is inherently impossible of
accident in which the offender had no accomplishment or because the
part means employed by the offender is
inadequate or ineffectual

Art 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. –

Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made subject of
legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by
the offense.

NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime if there is no law that
punishes the act.
When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable,
the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act
should be punished.

Article 5 covers two situations:

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 17

(1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a
crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but the court is mandated to report to
the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.

(2) Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime, the judge
should impose the law (Dura lex sed lex). The most that he could do is to
recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.

 Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including

profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. There can be no executive
clemency for these crimes.

Criminal Law 1 Notes © Atty. JGPA Page 18