Article 4.

Criminal Liability - Criminal liability shall

be incurred:
1. By an person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act 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.

Application of Article 4: This article has no reference to
the manner of or how criminal liability is incurred, which is
stated in Article 3. It merely provides for how criminal
liability is incurred by a person.

One who commits an intentional felony is responsible
for all the consequences which may naturally and
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not.
-If committed with malice, he intends the felonious act. But
there are cases where the consequences of the felonious
act of the offender are not intended by him. the wrongful
act be different from that which he intended
-According to Article 4 (1), he would STILL BE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE

e.g. When someone commits rape and accidentally kills
the person in the process of raping him/her just because
the result is different from what the offender intended does
not mean s/he will be relieved from criminal liability
(People vs. Mario Mariano)
-U.S. vs. Brobst: One is not relieved from criminal liability
for the natural consequences of ones illegal acts, merely
because one does not intend to produce such
consequences.

Rationale of rule in Article 4 (1)
Doctrine: el que es causa es causa del mal causado
*HE WHO IS THE CAUSE OF THE CAUSE IS THE
CAUSE OF THE EVIL CAUSED

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES
1. Committing a felony
-The act must be punishable by the RPC
-The felony committed should be by means of
dolo (with malice), because Article 4(1) speaks of
the wrongful act done different from that which
he intended
-Article 365 Defines and penalizes criminal
negligence
-The act or omission should not be punished by a
special law, because the offender violating a
special law may not have the intent to do an
injury to another. In such case, that wrongful act
done could not be different as the offender did
not intend to do an injury to another. In such
case, the wrongful act done could not be different,
as the offender did not intend to do any other
injury.

Article 4(1) is not applicable in this case
A doctor said he wanted to cure the girl of ulcer,
so he wrapped her feet with rags saturated with
petroleum and set them on fire, causing injuries.
The doctor said he merely did it to cure her of
ulcer. The doctor was found guilty causing
injuries through imprudence because. He did not
commit an intentional felony. If at all, he violated
a statute on the illegal practice of medicine, and
the violation of a statute is proof of negligence or
imprudence.

When a person has not committed a felony,
he is not criminally liable for the result which
is not intended.
e.g. Someone who tries to retain possession of a
bolo which was being taken by another and in
the process accidentally pierces the chest of a
bystander is not criminally liable

2. Although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended
-The causes which may produce a result different from that
which the offender intended are:
a. Mistake in the identity of the victim Error in
personae

People vs. Sabalones

On June 1, 1985 at 11:45 PM, respondents
including Rolusape Sabalones, armed with
firearms, attacked and ambushed individuals
riding in 2 vehicles resulting in the death of 2
persons and injury to 3 others. An extrajudicial
statement of Appellant Beronga and the
testimony of Jennifer Binghoy showed that the
appellants believed that they expected Nabing
Velez to retaliate after Sabalones group was
implicated in his murder.

ISSUE: W/N the case of one of aberration ictus
(appealed that the case is one merely of
aberratio ictus)

HELD: NO. The case is one of error in personae.
Aberratio ictus is characterized by aiming at one
but hitting another. In the case at bar, the
appellants opened fire because they mistook the
vehicles to be carrying the avenging men of
Nabing Velez. This, however, does not diminish
their criminal liability because a mistake in the
identity of a victim carries the same gravity as
when the accused zeroes in on his intended
victim. (NOTE: Aberratio ictus was used
previously by the court to determine why the
appellants committed the crime, and not to prove
that they did it.)

b. Mistake n the blow aberration ictus

People vs. Guillen

Julio Guillen wanted to assassinate President
Roxas because he allegedly failed to fulfill his
promises during the presidential elections
campaign. Guillen was further aggravated when
Roxas supported the parity measure. Before
executing his plan to kill Roxas, he even wrote a
letter which stated that Roxas assassination is
his duty in order to protect the welfare of the
people. He planned to kill Roxas during the
meeting of the Liberal Party at Plaza Miranda,
using two grenades. One grenade was buried in
a plant pot near the stage while Guillen three the
second one at the stage when Roxas finished his
speech. General Castaneda saw the smoking
grenade and kicked it towards an open space.
However, it fell to a group of people standing
close to the stage. A certain Valera died as a
result.

ISSUE: W/N Guillen was guilty of murder for the
death of Valera

HELD: YES. Guillen knew fully that by throwing
the second hand grenade, he could not have
prevented the persons who were around Roxas
to be killed or injured. This is a case of aberration
ictus because Guillen aimed at Roxas but ended
up hurting other people.

He committed 2 grave felonies: murder and
multiple attempted murder. According to Article
48 of RPC, the penalty for the more serious
crime will be followed in cases of complex crimes.
Since murder is the more serious crime, Guillen
was sentenced to an indeterminate period of
reclusion temporal to death.

c. The injurious result is greater than that
intended praeter intentionem

People vs. Albuquerque

Albuquerques daughter, Pilar, got pregnant with
Osmas, the deceased, child. One day,
Albuquerque went to Osmas workplace to talk to
Osma. No one saw what happened between
them. Albuquerque testified that Osma refused to
marry Pilar, and when Albuquerque brought out
his penknife, Osma seized Albuquerques neck.
Albuquerque then stabbed Osma. According to
Albuquerque, he was only aiming for Osmas
face but since he was suffering from partial
paralysis, he had no control over his right arm,
and ended up stabbing Osmas neck instead.

ISSUE:W/N Albuquerque is criminally liable for
his acts

HELD: YES. Although Albuquerque did not
intend to kill Osma but only to injure him, he still
incurs criminal liability. However, his intention to
injure is not so grave a wrong as the homicide
which he actually committed. The death of Osma
was a result of praeter intentionem because
the result of Albuquerques intention was greater
than what he intended.

Requisites of Article 4 (1):
1. That an intentional felony was committed
No felony is committed:
a. When the act or omission is not
punishable by RPC
e.g. SUICIDE (So if someone
becomes collateral damage in the
event of one committing suicide
when s/he jumped off a building,
the person who committed suicide
will not be held liable)
b. When the act is covered by any of
the justifying circumstances
enumerated in Art. 11

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

Any person who creates in anothers mind an
immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to
do something resulting in the latters injuries, is liable
for the resulting injuries.

e.g. A threatens B while in a jeep that if B does not give
money, A will fire shots. Out of fear, B jumps out of the
jeepney and dies. A can be charged with attempted
robbery with intimidation.

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.

The felony committed must be the proximate cause of
the resulting injury.

Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which,
the result would not have occurred.
-There must be a relation of cause and effect, and such
relationship is not altered or changed because of the pre-
existing conditions.

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
life or events, while logical means that there is a rational
connection between the act of the accused and the
resulting injury or damage.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
resulting injury when:
1. There is an active force that intervened between
the felony committed and the resulting injury, and
the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused.
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of
the victim.




Bataclan vs. Medina

F: At about 2 in the morning, while the bus was running
very fast on a highway, one of the front tires bust and the
vehicle began to zigzag until it fell into a canal and turned
turtle. 4 of its passengers could not get out of the
overturned bus. It appeared as the bus overturned,
gasoline began to leak from the tank on the side of the
chassis, spreading over and permeating the body of the
bus and the ground under and around it. About ten men,
one of them carrying a lighted torch, approached the
overturned bus to help those left therein, and almost
immediately a fierce fire started, burning the four
passengers trapped inside it.

I: W/N the proximate cause is the overturning of the bus

H: YES. One might content that the proximate cause is the
burning and not the overturning of the bus, as possible in a
case of looting or men intentionally setting it on fire. In this
cause, however, the Court declared that the proximate
cause was the overturning of the bus. The bus turned not
only on its side but completely on its back, so the leaking
of the gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or
unexpected. The coming of men with a lighted torch (they
were in a province) was in response to the call for help.
The coming of men with the torch was to be expected and
was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus.
There was negligence on the part of the driver and the
conductor, who were seen walking back and forth on the
road but did not even inform the rescuers of where the gas
might have leaked.

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of
the injury when (e.g. unskillful and improper
treatment)
1. There is an active force that intervened between
the felony committed and the resulting injury, and
the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of
the victim

Impossible crimes Article 4 (2)

The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of
criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the
actor. According to positivist thinking, the community must
be protected from anti-social activities, whether actual or
potential, of the morbid type of man called socially
dangerous person.

Requisites:
1. That the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual
4. That the act performed should not constitute
a violation of another provision of the RPC


































































































w
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies. Consummated felonies, as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.

A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

Development of crime

1. Internal Acts mere ideas in the mind of a
person. These are not punishable even if they
would constitute a crime if they had been carried
out. There is a need for intention and effect to
concur.
2. External Acts
a. Preparatory Acts not punishable
(unless provided by law, See Article 8(
e.g. proposal and conspiracy to
commit a felony, buying poison,
carrying a weapon with which to kill the
intended victim, carrying flammable
materials to the place where a house is
to be burned
b. Act of Execution THEY ARE
PUNISHABLE UNDER THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
i. ATTEMPTED
ii. FRUSTRATED
iii. CONSUMMATED

Attempted Felony the offender begins the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, but has not performed all
acts of execution which would produce a felony

Elements:

1. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony
3. The offenders act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was
due to cause or accident rather than his own
spontaneous desistance

Important words and phrases:

1. Commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts

When is the commission of a felony deemed
commenced directly by overt acts?

-When the 2 requisites are present:

a. That there are external acts OVERT ACTS
of the crime the offender intended to commit

An overt act is some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen intro a concrete
offense.

What is the difference between preparatory acts
and overt acts?

EXAMPLE:

Preparatory act: when you simply buy poison
from a drugstore. It has no direct connection with
the crime of murder.

Overt act: when the poison bought in the earlier
example is mixed in another persons food. And
that person, not knowing the food was poisoned,
ate it. The buying of poison and mixing it with the
food of B who later put into his mouth part
thereof to eat it, taken together, constituted the
overt acts of murder.

Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not an overt
act of homicide.

Raising a bolo as if to strike the offended party
with it is not an overt act of homicide.

Overt acts may not be physical activity (e.g.
proposal consisting in making an offer of money
to a public officer to the purpose of corrupting
him corruption of public officer)


b. Such external acts have direct connection
with the crime intended to be committed

People vs. Lamahang

F: At early dawn, policeman Jose Tomambin,
who was patrolling on Delgado and C.R. Fuentes
Sts., Iloilo, caught the accused in the act of
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of
a stop of cheap goods. The owner of the store,
Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another
Chinaman. The accused had only succeeded in
breaking one board and in unfastening another
from the wall, when the policeman showed up
and immediately arrested him and placed him
under custody. Lamahang was convicted by the
lower court of attempted robbery.

ISSUE: W/N attempted robbery can be inferred
from the acts already committed by Lamahang

HELD: NO. He can only be guilty of attempted
trespassing. If it was attempted robbery, then it
must be shown that the offender clearly intended
to take possession of some personal property.
However, Lamahangs actions did not develop
beyond the first steps of its execution. His
actions cannot allow the Court to conclusively
state that it was his intention to take possession
of things that are not his.

Indeterminate offense Where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in
relation to its objective is ambiguous, such as in the case
of People vs. Lamahang.

The intention of the accused must be viewed from the
nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission.

Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, as well as
against the accused, and which show an innocent as well
as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish ground
by themselves for attempted crime.

In offenses not consummated, the nature of the action
intended cannot exactly be ascertained, but the same
must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed. The
overt acts leading to the commission of the offense are not
punishable except when they are aimed directly at its
execution, and therefore they must have an immediate and
necessary relation to the offense.

The desistance should be made before all the acts of
execution are performed. If not, then it is possible that all
acts have already been executed to consider the crime
consummated. (Examples: Man who returned chicken
after he stole it, and the man who did not die despite a
persons attempt to kill him)

The desistance which exempts from criminal liability
has reference to the crime intended to be committed,
and has no reference to the crime actually committed
by the offender before his desistance.

A shoots B but misses. B cried. A did not shoot anymore.
A is still criminally liable for grave threat. The spontaneous
desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal
liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him
from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

Subjective phase of the offense
-portion of acts constituting the crime starting from the
point where the offender begins the commission of the
crime to that point where he still has control over his acts,
including their natural course.
-if between these two points, the offender is stopped by
any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the
subjective phase has not been passes and it is an attempt.
-if he is not so stopped but continuous until he performs
the last act, it is frustrated, provided the crime is not
produced. The acts of the offender reached the objective
phase of the crime, and is thus frustrated.

Frustrated Felony

Elements:

1. The offender performs all acts of execution.
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony
as a consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.

Frustrated vs. Attempted Felony

1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his
criminal purpose.
2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, in
attempted felony the offender merely
commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution

In FF, the offender has reached the objective phase; in
attempted felony, the offender has not passed the
subjective phase.

Essential element to distinguish: In FF, there is no
intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency
between the beginning of the consummation of the crime
and the moment when all the acts have been performed
which would result in the consummated crime.