ARTICLE 3

Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be 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.

FELONIES (DELITOS)

1. Only applies to crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code

2. Committed through

a. Deceit (dolo)

• Act is performed with deliberate intent

b. Fault (culpa)

• Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill

3. Elements

a. Act/Omission

ACT OMISSION

• Any bodily movement that produces • Inaction or failure to perform a duty they
an effect in the external world were bound to do

• The effect does not need to be • Requires a law mandating the

produced, only needs the possibility of
its production
• Must either
• Constitute a felony
• Be an overt/external act that has a
direct connection with the felony
intended
performance of an act
• People v. Silvestre and Atienza
1. Atienza committed arson; Silvestre did not
raise a protest and alarm when the fire was
set
2. Silvestre was tried with accomplice to the
crime

• Internal acts are beyond the sphere of 3. She was acquitted because evidence of
penal law. A criminal thought or only conspiracy is required; mere passive
mere intent will not constitute a felony presence is not enough

b. Punishable by law (meaning the RPC)

• Principle: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege = there is no crime when there is no law
punishing it

• “felony” = RPC; “crime/offense” = special penal laws

c. Through means of dolo or culpa

DOLO (means of deceit) CULPA (means of fault)

 • Intentional felonies • Culpable felonies

• Voluntarily acted with deliberate intent • Voluntary negligent or imprudent acts

without malice
• Malicious act
• Not malicious act
• Has the intention to cause an injury to
another • Injury is unintentional; merely an incident
of another act without malice
• Really means dolus = intent to do an
injury to another • A person who caused an injury, without
intent to cause an evil, may be held liable
• An omission may be malicious if it has
for culpable felony.
the intent to do injury
• The mind of the accused is not criminal but
• The mind of the accused is criminal
his act is wrongful because the resulting
• Injury is intentional damage is due to his negligence and
imprudence.

• Injury is not intentional

• US v. Divino

1. X had ulcer. Defendant tied her feet with rags and set them on fire causing injuries.
Defendant was liable for physical injuries through imprudence

d. Special note

• Reasons why felonies must be voluntary

1. Classical Theory – basis of criminal liability is human free will

2. Man is a rational being

3. Dolo – there is deliberate intent which means it was voluntary; Culpa – act was
voluntarily done from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill

4. Negligence v. Imprudence in Culpable Crimes

NEGLIGENCE IMPRUDENCE

• Deficiency of perception • Deficiency of action

• Lack of foresight • Lack of skill

• Why is this punished • People v. Ramirez

1. Man 1. Ramirez and Y were hunting a deer. Ramirez thought

must use he shot a deer but it was Y.
common
2. Ramirez voluntarily discharged his gun without malice
sense
3. Ramirez was convicted for the crime of homicide
2. Exercise
through reckless imprudence
due
reflection
in his
acts
 3. Has the
duty to
be
cautious

5. Requisites of dolo = must all be present

a. Freedom

i. If without freedom, the person is not anymore acting as a human being but as a tool

ii. Exemption from criminal liability

1. Acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force

2. Acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

b. Intelligence

i. If without intelligence, a person cannot determine the morality of human acts

ii. Exemption from criminal liability

1. Imbecile/insane

2. Under 9 years old

3. Between 9 to 15 years old but acting without discernment

c. Intent

i. Principles:

1. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea = the act itself does not make a man guilty unless
his intention were so

2. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus = an act done by me against my will is not my
act

ii. Intent to commit an act with malice is presumed from the proof of the commission

1. It can be rebutted if evidence is shown to the contrary.

2. Absence of intent can be a defense for those accused with intentional felony.

iii. The existence of intent is proven from the overt acts of the person.

iv. General Rule: Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.

1. People v. Sia Teb Ban

a. Sia took a watch. His defense was that the prosecution failed to prove intent to
gain on his part.

b. Convicted. From the freely and deliberately taking of a watch, the moral and
legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and
indisputably, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

v. Exception:
 1. If the facts proven are accompanied by other facts which show that the act complained
of was not unlawful, the presumption of criminal intent does not arise.

2. Not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy

vi. Forms:

1. General intent – third element of voluntariness in felonies committed by dolus

2. Specific intent – required by some particular felonies e.g. frustrated/attempted

homicide, forcible abduction

d. Special notes

i. A person who caused an injury by accident is not criminally liable because even though he had
freedom and intelligence, he had no intent.

ii. Absence of one or more requisite does not incur criminal liability.

1. People v. Beronilla

a. B was a military officer tasked by his superior to do an order. The order was
illegal.

b. B was not convicted because he did not have any intent.

6. Mistake of Fact

a. One cannot be convicted, when by reason of a mistake of fact, there does not exist the intent to commit
the crime.

b. Ignorantia facti excusat = ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability

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

d. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent.

e. Intent requires voluntariness. If without the former, the act is involuntary.

f. Requisites:

i. Act would have been lawful if the fact assumed by the accused was correct.

ii. Intent of the accused in performing the act is lawful.

iii. Mistake must not be due to the fault or carelessness of the accused.

g. US v. Ah

i. Ah locked himself in his room with a chair fearing of bad omen.

ii. Someone knocked on his door. He said, “If you enter, I will kill you.”

iii. The knocker opened the door and hit Ah with the chair.

iv. Ah seized a kitchen knife killing the knocker. The knocker turned out to be his roommate.

v. Ah was acquitted because of mistake of fact.

h. Exception
 i. Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve the
accused from criminal responsibility. = error in personae

1. People v. Oanis

a. Oanis was under the instruction to arrest X. if X fights, Oanis should bring him in,
dead or alive.

b. Oanis went to the room, saw a man sleeping, and shot the gun with the belief
that the man was X.

c. It was not X. Oanis argued for mistake of fact.

d. Oanis was convicted. Killing X even if it was really him, did not justify shooting
him because he was just sleeping.

ii. When the accused is negligent

1. People v. De Fernando

a. A was a policeman looking for an escapee.

b. He saw a person going up a house with a bolo calling for a person in the house.

c. A fired at the man who turned out to be the nephew of the owner of the house.

d. A is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence.

e. Defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a

culpable felony.

f. In mistake of fact, intent is not involved, only negligence or imprudence.

7. Requisites of culpa

a. Freedom

b. Intelligence

c. Imprudent, negligent, lacks foresight, or lacks skill

8. Three classes of crimes

a. Intentional felonies – intent to commit a crime = there must be criminal intent

b. Culpable felonies

c. Those defined and punished by special laws including municipal/city ordinances

i. Does not need intent to commit; only intent to perpetrate

1. A person may not have intended to commit a crime but he did intend to commit an act,
and that act is the crime itself.

2. Only requires that the prohibited act was done freely and consciously because said act is
injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.

d. Rules:

i. In acts mala in se, there must be criminal intent

 ii. In acts mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done

MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

• Wrongful from their nature • Wrong merely because prohibited by

statute
• So serious in their effects that society
calls for a unanimous condemnation • Violation of mere rules of
convenience designed to secure a
• Inherently immoral
more orderly regulation of society
• Refers to felonies
• Refers to acts made criminal by
• Is there intent? special laws

1. Except: if crimes are inherently

immoral then they are mala in se
even if under special laws

• Has the law been violated?

9. Motive

MOTIVE INTENT

• Is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. • Is the purpose
to use a
• It is the reason for the crime.
particular
• Not an essential element, thus needs not be proved. means to effect
such result.
• Lack of motive does not mean there is no crime.
• It is the decision
• A good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime. to do the crime.
• It may be an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime

• Lack of motive may be used to aid in showing the innocence of the

accused.

• Existence of a motive is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable

doubt.

• Proved by:

1. Testimonies of witnesses

2. Statements of the accused

When is motive relevant?

1. Identity of accused

a. Not used when commission is proven and identity is convincing.

b. Used if identity is in dispute

c. Used if there is doubt to the identity

 d. Not used if defendant admits

e. Used if the question of motive is important to the person who committed the act except if there is
no longer any doubt that it was the defendant

f. Used if the identification of the accused is from an unreliable source and the testimony is
inconclusive

2. Antagonistic theories

a. Used to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic theories

3. No eyewitnesses and suspicion is likely to fall on a number of persons

4. Circumstantial evidence or sufficient evidence

a. Used if circumstantial evidence

b. Not used if sufficient evidence

ARTICLE 4

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 an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

1. Rationale

1) El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado = he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused

2. Scope

1) Intentional felonies only

2) Culpable felonies are defined under Article 365 of the RPC.

3. First Paragraph

1) Rules of Criminal Liability

i. 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.

ii. 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.

iii. A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a new
charge without double jeopardy.

1. People v. Petilla
 a. Petilla was initially tried for slight physical injuries because medical attention
was needed for 8 days only.

b. After the preliminary investigation, the justice found that the wound needs
attention for 30 days.

c. The charge was increased. No double jeopardy incurred.

2) Causes which may result differently from that which is intended:

i. Mistake in the identity = error in personae

ii. Mistake in the blow = aberratio ictus

iii. Act exceeds the intent = praetor intentionem

3) Requisites of Paragraph 1 Article 4

i. Intentional felony has been committed

1. No intentional felony if

a. Act is not punishable by the RPC

b. Act is covered by the justifying circumstances in Art. 11.

ii. Wrong done to the aggrieved is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felony
committed i.e.:

1. Aggrieved jumps into the water and died due to drowning

2. Aggrieved removed the drainage from the wound due to extreme pain and restlessness
and therefore developed peritonitis

3. Other causes cooperated as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous

a. Holds true even if the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful
medical or surgical treatment

4. Aggrieved suffered from internal malady

a. Blow was efficient cause of death

b. Blow accelerated death

c. Blow was proximate cause of death

5. Aggrieved refused to submit to surgical operation

6. Resulting injury was aggravated by infection

7. Exception:

a. Accused is not responsible for consequences which bear no relation to the initial
act.

b. It clearly appears that the injury would not have caused death and the death
was proven to be due to the malicious or careless acts of the aggrieved or third
party

4) Proximate cause
 i. 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

ii. Natural – occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events

iii. Logical – there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury
or damage

iv. There must be a relation of cause (felonious act) and effect (resultant injuries). Cause and effect
is not altered by:

1. Las condiciones patologica del lesionado = pathological condition of the victim

2. La constitucion fisica del herido = predisposition of the victim

3. La falta de medicos para sister al herido = negligence or fault of the doctors

4. Conditions supervening the felonious act i.e. tetanus

v. Not a proximate cause when

1. An active force, distinct and absolutely foreign, intervenes between the cause (felony)
and effect (injury)

2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

vi. Not an active force/efficient intervening causes

1. Weak or diseased physical condition

2. Nervousness or temperament

3. Causes which are inherent to a victim e.g. not knowing how to swim or vice

4. Neglect of the victim or third person

5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment

6. Delay in the medical treatment

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

1. Victim used to have a normal health

2. Death may be expected from the injuries

3. Death ensued within a reasonable time

4. Second Paragraph

1) Impossible crimes

i. Commission of such is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendence

ii. Foundation: Positivist Theory

1. The community must be protected from anti-social activities, whether actual or

potential, of a socially dangerous person

iii. Purpose:
 1. To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, not a criminal.
Subjectively, a criminal.

iv. Penalty is under Article 59.

v. Requisites

1. Act performed would be an offense against persons or property

2. Act was done with evil intent

3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either

inadequate or ineffectual

4. The act should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

vi. Not an impossible crime when:

1. Crimes against person or property was successfully committed

2. One of the acts performed is punishable by another provision in the RPC

3. If the act performed is an offense other than a felony against a person/property

4. If the act performed has produced an offense against persons/property

5. Frustrated felony – means employed is adequate but the result expected is not
produced

vii. Felonies against persons

1. Parricide – murder of parents or close relative

2. Murder

3. Homicide – person who kills another

4. Infanticide

5. Abortion

6. Duel

7. Physical injuries

8. Rape

viii. Felonies against property

1. Robbery

2. Brigandage – one who lives by plunder

3. Theft

4. Usurpation – to seize possession without right

5. Culpable insolvency

6. Swindling and other deceits

7. Chattel mortgage
 8. Arson and other crimes of destruction

9. Malicious mischief

2) Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment

i. The act intended is naturally impossible to accomplish

ii. Must either have

1. Legal impossibility

2. Physical impossibility

iii. Should either be an offense against

1. Persons

2. Property

ARTICLE 5

Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law,
and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to
repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be
made the 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.

1. Requirements of a trial of a criminal case in the first paragraph

a. Act committed appears not punishable by any law

b. Court deems it proper to repress it

c. Court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused

d. Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons

2. Basis: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege = there is no crime if there is no law punishing it

3. Requirements of the second paragraph

a. Court finds the accused guilty

b. Penalty appears to be excessive because

i. Accused had a lesser degree of malice

ii. No injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity

c. Court should not suspend the execution

 d. Judge to submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending
executive clemency

4. Penalties are not excessive if they are intended to enforce a public policy

5. Courts have the duty to respect and apply the law, regardless of their private opinions.

a. Principle: dura lex dura sed lex = the law is hard but it is the law

6. The judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

7. The Courts may invoke Art. 5 for cases involving the violation of special penal laws.