Republic of the Philippines

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN PHILIPPINES

Tamag, Vigan City
2700 Ilocos Sur

NOTES IN
CRIMINAL LAW
TOPIC 3
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN

Pro hac vice

A.Y. 2020-2021
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

DISCLAIMER:

The compilers and editors do not claim full authorship of this material.
The substantial content of this worktext were drawn from textbooks.

NOTE:

Pro Hac Vice (On this occasion only, during the COVID-19 Pandemic)

You may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, display, perform,

modify, transmit, or in any way exploit any such content and you are not
allowed to distribute or upload any part of this content over any network
or website, sell or offer it for sale, or use such content to construct any kind
of database.

For educational purposes only.

CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

TOPIC 3
FELONIES
INTRODUCTION:
Felonies are acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Felonies are
committed by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault (culpa). The elements of felonies are:
1. There must be an act or omission (i.e., there must be external acts);
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC; and
3. The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo (malice) or culpa (fault)
(People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990).

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this topic, learners should be able to:

• Define Felonies;
• Differentiate Intentional Felonies and Culpable felonies (Dolo vs Culpa);
• Identify criminal liabilities and differentiate Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae and
Praeter Intentionem and Impossible Crime;
• Explain the concept of Honest Mistake of Fact and Proximate cause;
• Differentiate Motive and Intent; and
• Classify felonies.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

FELONIES
Criminal liabilities and felonies

Grave vs. less grave vs. light felonies

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.

Definitions:
1. Act – Must be overt or external (mere criminal thought or intent is not punishable). Any
body movement tending to produce an effect.
Examples
a. Stabbing a person
b. Firing of a gun
c. Falsification

2. Omission – Inaction or failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
Examples
a. Failure to issue receipt
b. Failure to report knowledge of conspiracy against the government;
c. Failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.

GENERAL CLASSES OF CRIMES

1. Intentional Felonies
2. Culpable felonies
3. Crimes defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punishable by
municipal or city ordinances.

The first two are defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

FELONIES

What are felonies?

Felonies are acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

What are the two ways of committing felonies?

Felonies are committed by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault (culpa).

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES

The elements of felonies are:

1. There must be an act or omission (i.e., there must be external acts);
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC; and
3. The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo (malice) or culpa
(fault) (People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990).

Meaning of the word “act”

By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of
its production is sufficient.

But the act must be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code as constituting a
felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act which has direct
connection with the felony intended to be committed.

Example of felony by performing an act.

A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the latter. The act of
taking the watch of B, with intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft.

Only external act is punished.

The act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
Hence, a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or improper it may be,
will never constitute a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the
commission of the crime directly by overt act, A is not criminally liable.

Meaning of the word “omission”

By omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound
to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Examples of felony by omission

1. Anyone who fails to render assistance to any person whom he finds in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of persons in danger.
(Art. 275, par. 1)
2. An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as
provided by law, is guilty of illegal exaction. (Art. 213, par. 2 [b])
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having
knowledge of any conspiracy against the government, who does not disclose and make
known the same to the proper authority, is liable for misprision of treason.

INTENTIONAL FELONIES vs. CULPABLE FELONIES

INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES

Requisites: Requisites:
1. The offender must have freedom 1. The offender must have freedom
while doing the act or omitting to do while doing the act or omitting to do
the act; the act;
2. The offender must have intelligence 2. The offender must have intelligence
while doing the act or omitting to do while doing the act or omitting to do
the act; the act;
3. The offender commits the act with 3. The offender is imprudent, negligent,
intent. or there is lack of foresight or skill
while doing the act or omitting to do
a. Freedom – that the act or omission was the act.
voluntary and without external compulsion.
b. Intelligence – capacity to understand the Negligence – Usually involves lack of
morality and consequences of an act but the foresight. A deficiency of perception or
perpetrator should not be a minor, insane or failure to pay proper attention and to
imbecile. use diligence to avoid a foreseeable
c. Intent – is presumed unless otherwise damage or injury.
disproved, with the commission an unlawful
act. Imprudence – Usually involves lack of
skill. A deficiency of action or failure to
take necessary precaution to avoid injury
or damage.

Examples of intentional felonies:

1. With intent to kill, Johnny fired his gun at Bruno. The latter was hit and he died
instantaneously. Johnny is liable for Homicide, an intentional felony.
2. Rod set the house of George on fire. As a result, the house of George was razed and
turned to ashes. Rod is liable for Arson, an intentional felony.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Examples of culpable felonies:

1. During the celebration of New Year’s Day, PO1 Caranto fired his armalite in the air to
warmly welcome the New Year. One of the bullets hit and killed Joval, a jubilant merry
maker. PO1 Caranto is liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, a culpable
felony. He did not act with intent to kill. In firing his gun though, he did not take into
consideration that somebody can be injured or killed in the process. There was lack of
foresight on his part.
2. X, a dump truck driver came upon a traffic red light. Instead of slackening his speed and
eventually stop, he stepped on the accelerator. In the process, he hit and bumped the
van of former Senator Rene Saguisag which was crossing the road. As a result, Dulce,
the wife of the former senator died. For his part, Saguisag suffered serious physical
injuries. X is liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Serious Physical
Injuries. He operated the dump truck in a reckless and imprudent manner resulting to the
death and injuries to the wife and husband respectively.

Problem: A and B conspired to kill X by means of poison. C has knowledge of the conspiracy
to commit murder. Despite such knowledge, C failed to disclose the same to the authorities. A
and B thus killed X with the use of poison. Had C reported his knowledge of the conspiracy to
commit murder, the authorities could have prevented the commission of the crime. For such
omission, did C incur criminal liability particularly a culpable felony?

Answer: No. He is not criminally liable. There is no law which punishes the failure or omission
to report a conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit a felony. There is no such crime
as misprision of felony.

DOLO or with malice ; CULPA or fault

Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice.

The word “deceit” in the second par. of Art. 3 is not the proper translation of the word
“dolo”. “Dolus” is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another. (I Wharton’s
Criminal Law 180)
When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to
do an injury to the person, property, or right of another, such offender acts with malice. If the
act or omission is punished by the RPC, he is liable for intentional felony.
Most of the felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the RPC are committed by
means of dolo or with malice. There are few felonies committed by means of fault or culpa.
Article 217 punishes malversation through negligence. Article 224 punishes evasion through
negligence. Article 365 punishes acts by imprudence or negligence, which, had they been
intentional, would constitute grave, less grave, or light felonies.
There are crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence, such as,
murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa.

Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally, and another committed
unconsciously and quite unintentionally, there exists another, performed without malice, but at
the same time punishable, though in a lesser degree and with an equal result, an intermediate
act which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence,

Categories of felonies according to gravity or penalty prescribed

As to gravity or penalty prescribed, felonies are classified as follows:

1. Grave Felonies – those which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which
in any of their periods are afflictive under Art. 25, RPC;
2. Less grave felonies – those which the laws punishes with penalties which in their maximum
period are correctional under Art. 25, RPC; and
3. Light felonies – those infractions of law for which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding forty thousand (P40,000) pesos or both is prescribed (RPC, Art. 9, as
amended by R.A. 10951, Sec. 1)

ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

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

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

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

May a crime be committed without intent?

Yes, in crimes mala prohibita and in culpable felonies. In crimes mala in se, intent governs
but in crimes mala prohibita, the only question is, has the law been violated? When the act itself
is illegal, intent is immaterial.

What is mens rea?

It is a wrongful criminal intent.

Example: X intends to rob a bank. This is a wrongful criminal intent. A wrongful criminal
intent by itself does not make one criminally liable.

What is actus rea?

It is a wrongful act. It is an act in furtherance of a wrongful criminal intent.

Example: Pursuant to an earlier plan X entered a bank and robbed it and its customers.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

To incur criminal liability for an intentional felony, mens rea and actus rea must be present. In
the foregoing, X is liable for Robbery. Both mens rea and actus rea are present.

HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT

What is mistake of fact?

Mistakes of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused the
injury to another (REYES, Book One, supra at 44).

What are the requisites of mistake of facts as a defense?

The requisites are:

1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be;
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; and
3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused (U.S. v. Ah
Chong, supra).

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith; but mistake of fact can
relieve the accused of criminal liability since it means there was no criminal intent
accompanying a felonious act.

It is an absolutory fact or justifying circumstance. Had the facts in the mind of the accused
been true, his action could have been a legitimate defense.

Example:
Zandro is dashing young man. One night, he went to a disco bar. While having cocktails,
a beautiful lady approached him. The lady introduced herself as Xenia, a college student. In
the course of their conversation, Zandro offered her some drinks and she obliged. When the
night was deepening, and as Zandro sensed that the girl likes him, he proposed that they go to
a more private place. Xenia agreed right away. That night, Zandro had carnal knowledge of
Xenia. After two weeks, Zandro got the shock of his life. He received a subpoena from the
Prosecutor’s Office that he is being charged of rape. The complaint states
that Xenia is demented. Under RA 8353, the Anti-Rape Law, which amended Art. 335 (Rape)
of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape can be committed if a person shall have carnal
relations with a demented.

If you were the lawyer of Zandro, what would be your defense? Why?
If I were the lawyer of Zandro, I will invoke the defense of honest mistake of fact. Having
carnal relations with someone is not a crime per se. In the case at bar, Zandro had conversations
with the lady and she appeared to be coherent. There was no indication at all that she is
mentally deficient or demented. The sexual congress between them was consensual. Zandro
thought she liked him and that she went with him voluntarily. Had the facts been as Zandro
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

believed them to be, his act would have been lawful. There was no fault or negligence on his
part.

Mistake of fact refers to the situation itself, not the identity of the persons involved.

When Honest Mistake of Fact not Applicable

1. When there is mistake in identity (error in personae);

2. When there is negligence on the part of the accused;
3. When the accused committed a culpable felony. The essence of honest mistake of fact is
lack of intent on the part of the accused. Intent is irrelevant in culpable felonies.

What is the meaning of the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”?
-It means the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal. Since intent is an essential
element of intentional felony, when the accused acted in good faith, there is no crime committed.
The maxim applies only to intentional felonies.

U.S v. Ah Chong
(15 Phil. 488)

Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going
to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he
was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, “Who is there?” but received
no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, “If you
enter the room I will kill you.” But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed
against the door, and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and
fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.

Issue: Is Ah Chong liable?

Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed
them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Article 11, par. 1, of the Revised
Penal Code, which requires, to justify the act, that there be-

1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, 2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it, and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
If the intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been
unlawful aggression on the part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah
Chong to defend himself and/or his home. The knife would have been reasonable means to prevent
or repel such aggression. And Ah Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making the
defense.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

People v. Oanis
(74 Phil. 257)

Facts: Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one
Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back
towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable
inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.

Held: Both accused are guilty of murder.

Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing
him while the latter was sleeping.

In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only
when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him
that killing him would be justified.

Ah Chong Case and Oanis Case distinguished

In the Ah Chong case, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused, because having no time or opportunity to make any
further inquiry, and being pressed by circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no
alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared to him, and such facts justified his act
of killing the deceased.

In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press them
to immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, the accused had ample time
and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, and could even effect a
bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was
unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for the accused to follow even if
the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest,
and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.

Hence, the accused in the Oanis case were at fault when they shot the victim in violation
of the instructions given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the identity of the
victim.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

MOTIVE

What is motive?
Motive is the reason why a person commits an act. It impels him to commit an act for a
definite result.

Is motive determinant of criminal liability?

Motive is NOT an element of a crime. It is immaterial in the commission of a felony. Hence,
it is not determinant of criminal liability. It is intent that is material. It is intent that determines
whether a person is criminally liable for a felony.
Motive alone will not make one criminally liable because under the RPC, there must be
an overt act of execution. No matter how wrongful a criminal thought or plan is, as long as
there are no overt acts, there is no crime committed.

Motive vs. Intent

1. Motive is the impelling reason which moves a person to commit an act while intent is the
purpose to use a particular means to achieve a desired result.
2. Motive is not an element of a crime. Intent is an element of a crime.

When is motive material or important?

1. The act brings about variant crimes.

Example: X, a law student of U.E. boxed Y, a law professor. Is X liable for Direct Assault
Upon a Person in Authority? Why? If not, why? Explain.
Answer: It depends. If Y was assaulted while engaged in the performance of his duties,
then the crime is Direct Assault upon a Person in authority. If not, then the crime is Physical
Injuries. Motive here is important to determine criminal liability because the act of boxing
Y gives rise to variant offenses.

2. When the perpetrator has not been positively identified as when nobody witnessed the
commission of the offense. (People vs. Valinas, 202 SCRA 516; People vs. Brioso, 155
SCRA 463)
Example: A COMELEC Registrar was ambushed and killed on his way to the municipal
hall. Nobody saw the incident and the identity of the perpetrator is unknown. In this case, motive
becomes important to determine the perpetrator of the crime.
It has been held that where the identity of the assailant is known, motive becomes
irrelevant and when it is supported with sufficient evidence for a conclusion of guilt, conviction
is sustainable. (People vs. Perante, 143 SCRA 56; Peo vs. Beltran, 137 SCRA 508)

3. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental;

4. To determine the specific nature of the crime; and
5. Where the accused claims self-defense.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Who may incur criminal liability?

MODE No. 1: By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.

What are the requisites for applying Art. 4(1) of the RPC?

The requisites are the following:

1. The accused must be committing a felony;
2. The felony must be intentional; and
3. The felony committed by the accused should be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury (U.S. v. Brobst, G.R. No. L-4935, October 25, 1909)

“El que de la cause es causa del mal causado”. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.
Under paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing an intentional felony is criminally
liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. This is true
whether the result is foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. He is liable for all the
direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.

This mode presupposes two (2) wrongful acts committed by the accused: a.) the one intended
to be committed; and b) the one actually committed.

WHEN THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED

Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow

Q: What is aberratio ictus and what are its implications?

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow is committed when an offender who intends to injure
a person, instead injures another whom he had no intention to injure, due to a mistake in the
execution of the attack (REYES, Book One, supra at 65). Pursuant to Art. 48 of the RPC, the
penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Example:
A with intent to kill, hacked B. B was not hit but C who was behind B was hit. C
died. A is liable for his attempt to kill B. A is also liable for the death of C. The death of C is a
natural consequence of the felonious act of A.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

The transferred intent rule is also applicable, that is, the intent to kill B was transferred
to C. But considering the fact that A performed a single act, A is liable for the complex crime
of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The penalty for the graver offense of Homicide which
is Reclusion Temporal must be imposed in its maximum period.

ERROR IN PERSONAE
Q: What is error in personae and what are its implications?

Error in personae (mistake in the identity of the victim) exists when a crime intended
against a person is committed upon another because the offender mistook the latter's identity
as that of the former. Art. 49 of the RPC provides that if the penalty for the intended crime is
lesser than the penalty for the crime actually committed, the penalty for the former shall be
imposed in its maximum period. On the other hand, if the penalty for the crime intended is
greater than the penalty for the crime actually committed, the latter penalty shall be imposed
in its maximum period (REyES, Book One, supra at 65).

Example:
A intended to kill B. One night, A shouted at the person whom he thought to be B. An
altercation ensued. In the process, A fired his gun at the person who died as a consequence. It
turned out that the person he shot and killed was not B but his own father.

A is liable for Parricide, the crime which was actually committed. When A fired his gun,
he acted with intent. He is liable for all the direct, logical and natural consequences of
his felonious act, whether foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. The fact that the
victim is different from the one A intended to kill does not exculpate him from criminal liability.
Mistake in the identity of the victim carries with it the same depravity as when the intended
victim is the one killed.

Applying Art. 49, the penalty imposable is not the penalty for Parricide which was the
one committed but the penalty for Homicide which is the crime intended to be committed, the
penalty being lesser than the penalty for Parricide which was actually committed. But the
penalty for Homicide which is Reclusion Temporal shall be imposed in its maximum period.

Praeter intentionem
Q: What is praeter intentionem and what are its implications

Praeter intentionem means unintentional and is committed when an injury resulting from
an act is greater than the injury intended to be caused by the offender (REYES, Book One. supr
at 66). It is considered as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13(3) of the RPC.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Example:

A boxed B with the intention of inflicting a lump on B. As a result of the blow, B lost his
balance and fell to the ground with his head hitting the pavement causing his death. A is liable
for Homicide. The law provides that he is liable even if the result of his felonious act is greater
than that intended by him. The penalty imposable is Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period.

EXPLANATION OF REQUISITES MODE NO. 1

1. The accused must be committing a felony;
2. The felony must be intentional; and
3. The felony committed by the accused should be the proximate cause of the resulting
injury.

1. The accused must be committing a felony;

2. The felony must be intentional;

That a felony has been committed

Thus, in the cases of U.S. v. Villanueva and People v. Bindoy, supra, the accused were not held
criminally liable, because they were not committing a felony when they caused the injury to another.
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 enumerated in Article 11.
An act which is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code is attempting to commit suicide.
(Art. 253)
Therefore, if A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself, but when
he dropped to the ground he fell on an old woman who died as a consequence, A is not
criminally liable for intentional homicide. A was not committing a felony when he
attempted a suicide.
One who shoots at another in self-defense, defense of relative, defense of a stranger, or in the
fulfillment of duty is not committing a felony, the act being justified. (Art. 11, Revised Penal
Code)
Hence, if B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him, fired his pistol at the latter in
self-defense, but missed him and instead hit and killed D, a bystander, B is not criminally liable
for the death of D. One acting in self-defense is not committing a felony.
A policeman, who was pursuing to arrest an armed prisoner who had just escaped from jail,
fired his service pistol at the latter when he refused to be captured. The slug fired from the
pistol of the policeman, after hitting the prisoner on his right leg, hit and seriously injured a
passer-by. The policeman is not criminally liable for the injury caused to the passer-by, because
being in the fulfillment of a duty he was not committing a felony.
OF COURSE, THE ACT OF DEFENSE OR FULFILLMENT OF DUTY MUST BE EXERCISED WITH DUE
CARE; OTHERWISE, THE ACCUSED WILL BE LIABLE FOR CULPABLE FELONY. (Reyes, Book One)
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate sense of

danger, which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter's
injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.
During a robbery in a passenger jeepney, one of the culprits told the women passengers
"to bring out their money and not to shout of else there will be shots.” One of the women
jumped out of the jeepney. Her head struck the pavement. She died as a consequence.
It was held that "if a man creates in another person's mind an immediate sense of danger,
which causes such person to try to escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the
man who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the resulting injuries.” (People v.
Page, 77 SCRA 348, 355, citing People v. Toling, L-27097, January 17, 1975, 62 SCRA
17, 33)
The reason for the ruling is that when the culprit demanded money from the women, threatening
to shoot if they would not bring out their money, a felony was being committed (i.e., at that
stage of execution, attempted robbery with intimidation which is punishable under Article 294,
in relation to Article 6 and Article 51 of the Code).
The Toling case, supra, relying on U.S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, quoted the syllabus, thus: “if a
person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably believes himself to be in danger
of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the
instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by
drowning."
Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of
felonious act.
It is an established rule that a person is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in
violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.(U.S. v.
Sornito. 4 Phil 357, 360; U.S. v. Zamora, 32 Phil. 218, 226; People v. Cornel, 78 Phil. 458,
261)
In the following cases, the wrong done is considered the direct, natural and logical consequence
of the felony committed, although -
a. The victim who was threatened or chased by the accused with a knife, jumped into the
water and because of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim he
sank down and died of drowning. (U.S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497; People v. Buhay, 79 Phil.
372)
b. The victim removed the drainage from the wound which resulted in the development of
peritonitis which in turn caused his death, it appearing that the wound caused by the
accused produced extreme pain and restlessness which made the victim remove it.
(People v. Quianson, 62 Phil.162)
c. Other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is
dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life. This is true even though the
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment.
This rule surely seems to have its foundation in a wise and practical policy. A different
doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a
salutary and essential safeguard. Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the
uncertainties attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries, it would be
easy in many cases of homicide to raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death,
and thereby to open wide the door by which persons guilty of the highest crime might
escape conviction and punishment. (13 R.C.L., 751, 752; 22 L.R.A., New Series, 841, cited
in People v. Moldes, 61 Phil. 4)
But where it clearly appears that the injury would not have caused death, in the ordinary course
of events, but would have healed in so many days and where it is shown beyond all doubt that
the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a third person, the
accused is not liable for homicide. One is accountable only for his own acts and their natural or
logical consequences, and not for those which bear no relation to the initial cause and are due,
for instance, to the mistakes committed by the doctor in the surgical operation and the treatment
of the victim’s wound. (Decision of the SC of Spain, April 2, 1903, cited by Viada)

PROXIMATE CAUSE

What is proximate cause

That cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which
he intended.
Natural -refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events;
Logical – means that there is rational connection between the act of the accused and the
resulting injury or damage.

There must be a relation of “cause and effect,” the cause being the felonious act of the
offended, the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim.

People v. Luces (C.A.-G.R. No. 13011-R, July 15, 1955)

Facts: Accused Ramon Luces gave a fist blow on the stomach of Feliciana, causing her to fall unconscious.
She never regained consciousness and a few minutes thereafter she died. In the autopsy report, it was found
that the probable cause of death was cardiac failure. The accused contended that the fist blow was not the
proximate cause of Feliciana's death.
Held: Whether Feliciana died as a direct effect of the fist blow, or as an outcome of the fall that
followed the blow, or as a consequence of the blow and the fall that caused her to lose consciousness, or of
heart failure due to shock caused by the blow and her fall to the ground, the result would be the same – that
the blow was the primary and proximate cause of her death.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE
The gravity of the crime does not depend on the more or less violent means used, but on the result and
consequence of the same and if the accused had not ill-treated the deceased she would not have died. Known
is the Latin maxim that "he who is the cause of the cause, is the cause of the evil caused.”
Note: Ill-treating another by deed without causing any injury, is a felony under Article 266 of this Code.

Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted:

1. When the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was strong and in normal
health;
2. When the death occurred within a reasonable time from the assault;
3. When the death is expected from the nature and location of the wound.

It having been established that the boy Jundam was in good health on the morning of the
incident; that he was whipped, spanked and thrown against the post by his teacher, his breast
hitting it; that he complained to his mother about the oppressive pain, crying and massaging his
breast all the time; that he was found to have two suspicious bluish spots – a big one on the
breast and another one on the upper left arm; and that he vomited blood until he died three
days afterwards; and there being no proof of any intervening cause, the liability of the teacher
for homicide necessarily follows from the premises stated. (People v. Tammang, 5 C.A. Rep
145)
NOTE: Had it been proved , as claimed by the defense, that the boy died of hydrophobia,
that would have constituted an intervening cause, and the accused would have been acquitted.

The felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury:
1. When there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the
resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct at or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused;

Example:

A boxed B. B fell on the ground. An oncoming car bumped B which caused his death.
A is not liable for the death of B because there was an efficient intervening cause,
the car that bumped B. The boxing of B by A was not the proximate cause of the death of the
victim. At most, A is liable for Physical Injuries.

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

Example:

A stabbed B and inflicted injuries upon the latter. B was hospitalized. Finding boredom
in the hospital, B removed his dextrose and went home. B later went to a dirty ditch
to catch fish. As a result, his wound developed infection which caused his death. A,
under the circumstances, is not liable for the death of B. His death was due to his own
intentional act.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE
Tetanus - There had been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when victim
was rushed to hospital, exhibiting symptoms of tetanus infection. Since infection is severe, he died the next day.
The incubation period of severe tetanus infection is less than 14 days. Hence, he could not have been infected
at the time of the stabbing since that incident occurred 22 days before the symptoms manifested. The infection
was an efficient intervening cause breaking the connection between the physical injuries and death. Hence, the
crime committed is physical injuries (Villacorta vs. People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011). If the victim
was infected by tetanus at the time of stabbing, and the infection is the proximate cause of death, the crime
committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel, G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947).

MODE No. 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

What is an impossible crime?

It is one where the acts performed would have been a crime against persons or property
but which is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means (BOADO, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code,
Books 1 and 2 and Special Penal Laws, (2018), p. 63)

What are the Elements of an impossible crime under Art. 4(2) of the RPC?

The elements of an impossible crime are:

1. The act performed would be an offense against Persons or property;
2. That the act was done with criminal or Evil intent;
3. That the accomplishment of the felony intended is Inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual for such purpose; and
4. That the acts performed should Not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC
(REYES, Book One, supra at 82).

1. The act performed would be an offense against Persons or property;

The crimes against persons are:
a. Parricide (Art. 246)
b. Murder (Art. 248)
c. Homicide (Art. 249)
d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
g. Physical Injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)
h. Rape (Art. 266-A, B, C and D)
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

The crimes against property are:

a. Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 300, 302 and 303)
b. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
c. Theft (Arts. 308, 310 and 311)
d. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
e. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314)
f. Swindling (Estafa) and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and 318)
g. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and
326)
i. Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330, 331)

2. That the act was done with criminal or Evil intent;

Since the offender in impossible crime intended to commit an offense against persons or
against property, it must be shown that the actor performed the act with evil intent, that is, he
must have the intent to do an injury to another.

Question: A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found out that B
was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast three times with a knife. Is
this an impossible crime?

Answer: No. A knew that B was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless body.
There was no evil intent on the part of A, because he knew that he could not cause an injury to
B. Even subjectively, he was not a criminal.

3. That the accomplishment of the felony intended is Inherently

impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual for such purpose; and
4. That the acts performed should Not constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC.

What are the kinds of impossibilities that makes a crime an impossible crime?

The impossibilities are either:

1. LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY – where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount
to a crime; or

Example A : A surreptitiously took a watch from the possession of another which turned
out to be the same watch he owns but lost 2 weeks earlier. An essential element of Theft
is that the offender must take a personal property belonging to another. This element is
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

absent. A cannot be a Thief of his own property. However, he may be held liable for
Impossible crime.

Example B: Suppose A with intent to take the watch of B who was then leaning on a trunk
of a tree in Sunshine Park stabbed the latter and then took his watch. It turned out that
B had been dead hours before. What crime or crimes did A commit?

Answer: A would have been liable for a complex crime of Robbery with Homicide if B
were alive before he stabbed him. But that could not be because it turned out that B was
already dead before A stabbed him. Seemingly, he is liable for an Impossible crime
because there is an inherent impossibility of killing B because he was already dead
before the assault. He could not be liable for an impossible crime of Homicide although
his mind was criminal because he also committed another crime which is Theft. Impossible
crime can be committed if no other crime is committed in the process. Thus, he is liable
for Theft.

Example D. A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B’s wallet. Once in
possession of the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is
A guilty of an impossible crime?
Answer: No, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is consummated
from the moment the offender has taken possession of the wallet with intent to gain.
Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime but of theft.

Example of an impossible crime against persons where the means employed is inadequate.

With intent to kill, X put poison in the coffee of Y. Unsuspecting, Y drank all the contents
of the coffee. The coffee laced with poison had no effect upon Y because the quantity of the
poison put in the coffee was too small. X is liable for an Impossible crime. It is not Attempted
Murder because the crime was inherently impossible of accomplishment.

Example of an impossible crime against persons where the means employed is ineffectual.

Believing that certain white powder was arsenic or poison, A mixed it with the coffee
intended for B. When B drank it, he was not injured at all because the white powder
turned out to be sugar. He is liable for an impossible crime.

2. FACTUAL OR PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY – when extraneous circumstances unknown to

the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime (Intod
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992).

A. Example of an Impossible Crime where the act performed by the offender would have
been an offense against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

Stabbing a person who is lying on bed, the offender having the intent to kill him and
thinking that he was only sleeping, when in fact that person had already been dead
before he stabbed him. The act performed by the offender would have been murder,
an offense against persons, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment, it being impossible to kill a person who is already dead. He must be
punished because he is a potential criminal. He has criminal tendency.

If the offender knew that his would be victim was already dead when he stabbed
him, he is not liable for an impossible crime because his mind was not criminal, He
knew that he cannot inflict any injury anymore to a dead person.

B. Example of an Impossible crime where the act performed by the offender would have
been an offense against property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment.

Knowing the combination of the safety deposit box of his office, X stayed behind with
the intention of stealing the money contained therein. When nobody was already around,
he opened the safety deposit box only to find out that it is empty of cash. X is liable for
an impossible crime.

In impossible crime the act performed should not constitute a

violation of another provision of theCode.
Question: A, who knew that B owned and always carried a watch, decided to rob B of
said watch. When A met B for that purpose, B did not have the watch because he forgot to
carry it with him. Thinking that B had the watch with him, A pointed his gun at him and asked
for the watch. Finding that B did not have the watch, A allowed B to go without further
molestation. Is this an impossible crime?

Answer: It is believed that A committed attempted robbery, not impossible crime. There
was intent to gain on the part of A when he decided to take the watch of B at the point of gun.
The crime of robbery with intimidation of person is not produced, not because of the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment, but because of a cause or accident (that B forgot to carry
the watch with him) other than A’s own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6 par. 3) Note also that
A’s pointing his gun at B already constituted at least the crime of grave threats under Article
282, subdivision 2, of the Revised Penal Code. This is another reason why it is not an impoosiblec
crime. [Reyes, Book One]

What is the Penalty for the commission of an impossible crime?

The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed
upon personal guilty of an impossible crime (RPC, Art. 59).
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

What is the purpose of the law in punishing an impossible crime?

The purpose is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. (REYES, Book One,
supra at 87).

What is the effect of committing an impossible crime?

Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal
(ld.).

Can there be an attempted or frustrated impossible crime? (2012 Bar)

NO. in an impossible crime, the person intending to commit an offense has already
performed acts for the execution of the same, but nevertheless the crime is not produced by
reason of the fact that the act intended is, by its nature, one of the impossible accomplishment
or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate or ineffectual to
produce the result desired by him. Therefore, since the offender in impossible crime has already
performed the acts for the execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime.
There is also no frustrated impossible crime because the acts performed by the offender are
considered as constituting as consummated offense (REYES, Book One, supra at 123).
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

FELONY; ITS CLASSIFICATIONS

I. According to manner of commission
II. According to nature
III. According to stages of execution
IV. According to gravity of penalties
V. According to plurality of crimes

SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATIONS

According to According to According to According to According to

manner of nature stages of gravity of plurality of
commission execution penalties crimes
1. Intentional 1. Mala in se 1. Attempted 1. Grave 1. Continuing
Felonies 2. Mala 2. Frustrated Felonies Crimes
2. Culpable Prohibita 3. Consummated 2. Less Grave 2. Complex
Felonies Felonies Crimes in Art. 48
3. Light Felonies 3. Special
Complex Crimes

I. According to manner of commission

1. Intentional Felonies - Crime committed with deliberate intent

2. Culpable Felonies - Crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.

II. According to Nature

1. Mala in se - A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or

rape.
2. Mala Prohibita - An act that is a crime because it is prohibited by statute, although the
act itself is not necessarily immoral.

III. According to stages of execution

1. Attempted - When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts but does not produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
2. Frustrated - When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
CRIMINAL
LAW REVISED
PREPARED BY:
ATTY. KENT ALVIN L. GUZMAN
PENAL CODE

3. Consummated - When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; the felony is produced.

IV. According to gravity of penalties

1. Grave felonies - Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictive.
2. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional.
3. Light felonies - It includes those punishable by: Arresto menor; or Fine not exceeding
₱40,000; or Both

V. According to plurality of crimes

1. Continuing Crimes
2. Complex Crimes in Art. 48
3. Special Complex Crimes

NOTE: To be discussed extensively in latter parts