CRIMINAL LAW

BOOK 1

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW

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

Theories in criminal law

Classical theory – The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution. It is endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and
penalty, and there is scant regard to the human element.

NOTE: The RPC is generally governed by this theory.

Positivist theory – The basis of criminal liability is the sum of the social, natural and economic
phenomena to which the actor is exposed. The purposes of penalty are prevention and correction.
This theory is exemplified in the provisions regarding impossible crimes (Art. 4, RPC), the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty (Art. 13, par. 7, RPC) and
habitual delinquency.

Eclectic or Mixed theory – It is a combination of positivist and classical thinking wherein crimes that
are economic and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner, thus, the law is more
compassionate. Ideally, the classical theory is applied to heinous crimes, whereas, the positivist is
made to work on economic and social crimes.

Legal basis for inflicting 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.

Sources of criminal or penal laws

1. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Act No. 3815) and its amendments;
2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine
Legislature, National Assembly, the Batasang Pambansa, and Congress of the Philippines;
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law by President Marcos; and
4. Penal Executive Orders issued during President Corazon Aquino’s term.

Basic maxims in criminal law

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same) –
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.

1
 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 to a felony resulting from culpa.

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.

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my act) –
Whenever a person is under a compulsion of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to do an act
against his will, in which that act produces a crime or offense, such person is exempted in any
criminal liability arising from said act.

Crime

A crime is the generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either under the RPC or under a
special law.

Special Penal law

It is a penal law which punishes acts not defined and penalized by the RPC. They are statutes enacted
by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the RPC.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se vis-à-vis. mala prohibita

BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA

There must be a criminal intent Sufficient that the prohibited act was
done
Wrong from its very nature Wrong merely because prohibited by
statute
Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not necessary
Punished under the RPC Violations of special laws

As to their NOTE: Not all violations of special

concepts laws are 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.
As to legal (a) Good faith (a) Good faith or
implications (b) lack of criminal intent or; (b) lack of criminal intent are not
(c) negligence are valid defenses valid defenses;
it is enough that the prohibition was
voluntarily violated

2
 Criminal liability is incurred even Criminal liability is generally
when the crime is attempted or incurred only when the crime is
frustrated consummated

Mitigating and aggravating Such circumstances are not

circumstances are appreciated in appreciated unless the special law
imposing the penalties has adopted the scheme or scale of
penalties under the RPC

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

When the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation but only for the
application of the law. However, if there is ambiguity:

1. Penal laws are strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.
2. In the interpretation of the provisions of the RPC, the Spanish text is controlling.

SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW

GENERALITY, TERRITORIALITY AND PROSPECTIVITY

Three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine criminal law

1. Generality

GR: The criminal law of the country governs all persons who live or sojourn within the
country regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed.

XPNs:
a. Treaty stipulations and international agreements, e.g. RP-US Visiting Forces Accord.
b. Laws of Preferential Application, e.g. R.A. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the
proper observance by the Republic and its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and
privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines.
c. The principles of public international law

Examples:
Sovereigns and other Chiefs of States
Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges d’ affaires.

NOTE: Only the heads of the diplomatic missions, as well as members of the diplomatic
staff, excluding the members of administrative, technical and service staff, are accorded
diplomatic rank. Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial representatives of foreign
nation are not diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the penal laws of the country
where they are assigned (Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).

3
 d. Members of the Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection with any
speech delivered on the floor of the house during a regular or special session (Art. IV, Sec.
11, 1987 Constitution).

NOTE: However, the doctrine of state of immunity from suit will not apply and may not
be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as
an ordinary citizen (Shauf v. CA, G.R. No. 90314, Novermber 27, 1990).

2. Territoriality

GR: The penal laws of the country have force and effect only within its territory.

XPNs: Art. 2 of the RPC

3. Prospectivity/Irretrospectivity

GR: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed after a
penal law had already taken effect.

NOTE: The retroactive effect shall benefit the accused even if at the time of the publication
of the law, a final judgment has been pronounced and the convict is serving sentence.

XPN: Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or
favorable to the accused.

XPNs to the XPN: The new law cannot be given retroactive effect even if favorable to the
accused:
a. When the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of actions (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922, November 8, 1902).
b. When the offender is a habitual criminal (Art. 22, RPC).

Article 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.

4
Instances when the RPC has extraterritorial application

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 preceding 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 (Art. 2,
RPC).

Philippine ship

It is a vessel registered in accordance with Philippine laws. If the vessel is in the high seas, it is
considered as an extension of the Philippine territory. But if the vessel is within the territory of
another country, jurisdiction is generally with the foreign State because penal laws are primarily
territorial in application.

NOTE: But Philippine warship and the official vessel of the President of the Philippines, wherever
they are, are extensions of the Philippines and its sovereignty.

Requirements of “an offense committed while on a Philippine ship or airship”

1. The ship or airship must be registered with the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA).
2. The ship must be in the high seas or the airship must be in international space.

Rules on jurisdiction over merchant vessels

1. The French rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the flag of the country for crimes committed
on board the vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace and order and security of the host
country.
2. The English rule recognizes that the host country has jurisdiction over crimes committed on
board the vessel unless they involve the internal management of the vessel.

NOTE: These rules refer to the jurisdiction of one country over its merchant vessels situated in
another country. These do not apply to war vessels over which a country always has jurisdiction.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL

LAWS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Authority to enact penal laws

Only the legislative branch of the government can enact penal laws.

Constitution limitations on the power of the legislature to enact penal laws

1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws (Sec. 1, Art. III, 1987

5
 Constitution).
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law (Sec.
14, [1], Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
3. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted (Sec. 19 [1], Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
4. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted (Sec. 22, Art. llI, 1987 Constitution).

NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Constitutional provision on non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment

Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes and Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law (Art. III, Section 19, 1987 Constitution).

When penalty considered as cruel and unusual

Punishments are considered cruel and unusual when they involve torture or a lingering death. It
implies something inhuman and barbarous or shocking to the conscience. But mere severity of penalty
does not make the same cruel and unusual punishment. To come under the ban, the punishment must
be “flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock
the moral sense of the community” (Boado, 2012).

FELONIES

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

Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.

Act as contemplated in criminal law

An act refers to 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 (Reyes,
2012).

6
Kinds of acts which are punishable

1.External – Mere criminal thoughts are not felonious.

2.Voluntary – Both dolo and culpa have to be voluntary.

Omission as contemplated in criminal law

An omission contemplated in criminal law means inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of a duty.

Elements of felonies

1.An act or omission

Examples: Misprision of treason; failure of an accountable officer to render accounts; murder;

rape.

2.Punishable by the Revised Penal Code

3.The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault (People v. Gonzales, G.R.
No. 80762, March 19, 1990).

Kinds of felonies

1. Intentional felonies (Dolo) – committed with criminal intent

2. Negligent felonies (Culpa) – where the wrongful acts result from imprudence, negligence, lack
of foresight or lack of skill

Intentional felony vis-à-vis Negligent felony

BASIS DOLO CULPA

As to malicious Act is malicious Not malicious
With deliberate intent Injury caused is unintentional being
As to intent incident of another act performed
without malice
As to the source of Has intention to cause a Wrongful act results from
the wrong wrong imprudence, negligence, lack of
committed foresight or lack of skill

Requisites of dolo

If any of the following requisites is absent, there is no dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
intentional felony.

1. Criminal intent – the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent to
commit an act with malice being purely a mental process is presumed. Such presumption
arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. A mental state, hence, its existence
is shown by overt acts.

7
 NOTE: If there is NO criminal intent, the act is justified. Offender incurs NO criminal liability.

2. Freedom of action – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act or omission.

NOTE: If there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability.

3. Intelligence – means the capacity to know and understand the consequences of one's act.

NOTE: If there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability.

Requisites of culpa

1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender, that is, the crime was the result of negligence,
reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;
2. Freedom of action on the part of the offender, that is, he was not acting under duress; and

3. Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Negligence

Negligence means deficiency in perception or lack of foresight, or failure to pay proper attention and
to use due diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to be caused.

Imprudence

Imprudence means a deficiency in action or lack of skill, or failure to take necessary precaution to
avoid injury to another. It usually involves lack of skill.

Negligence vis-à-vis Imprudence

In negligence, there is deficiency of perception, while in imprudence, there is deficiency of action.

Crimes which cannot be committed through culpa (negligence or imprudence)

1. Murder
2. Treason
3. Robbery
4. Malicious mischief

Mens rea

Referred to as the gravamen of the offense. Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the
crime. It can only be determined by knowing the particular crime committed.

Examples:

1. In theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent to gain.
2. In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery with intent to pervert the truth.

8
 3. In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of another coupled with the
employment of intimidation or violence upon persons or things.

Intent

Refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is a mental state, the existence of
which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person.

Categories of intent in criminal law

1. General criminal intent – Is presumed from the mere doing of a wrong act (or the actus reus).
This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrongdoer to prove that he acted
without such criminal intent.

NOTE: In felonies by means of dolo, the third element of voluntariness is a general intent.

2. Specific criminal intent – Is not presumed because it is an ingredient or element of a crime,

like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder. The
prosecution has the burden of proving the same.

NOTE: In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is required to produce the crime such as
in frustrated and attempted homicide, robbery, and acts of lasciviousness.

Presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an unlawful act

Criminal intent is always presumed to exist, provided that there is proof of the commission of an
unlawful act. This presumption does not arise when the act performed is lawful. Moreover, the
presumption can always be rebutted by proof of lack of intent.

From the felonious act of the accused, freely and deliberately executed, the moral and legal
presumption of a criminal intent arises conclusively and indisputably, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary (People v. Sia, G.R. No. L-31695, November 26, 1929).

Crime may be committed without criminal intent

A crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is:

1. A negligent felony, wherein intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence

2. A malum prohibitum.

Motive

It is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired result.

Motive as determinant of criminal liability

Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because the RPC requires that there must be an
overt act or an omission. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before
the intent.

9
Intent vis-à-vis Motive in Criminal law

BASIS MOTIVE INTENT

It is the moving power which It refers to the purpose to use a
Definition impels a person to act for a particular means to achieve the
definite result desired result
A crime may be committed It is an essential element of
Commission without motive. It is not element felonies by dolo
of the crime
Is essential only when the identity Is essential in intentional felonies
Essentiality
of perpetrator is in doubt

NOTE: Good faith is not a defense to the prosecution of a malum prohibitum.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
ART. 9

Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are
those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art..

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of
arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.

Importance of classifying the felonies as to their severity

To determine:
1. Whether these felonies can be complexed or not
2. The prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty.

Classifications of felonies according to their gravity

1. Grave – those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC (Art. 9, par. 1, RPC).

2. Less grave – those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC (Art. 9, par. 2, RPC).

NOTE: The criminal can still be rehabilitated and hence can be the subject of probation and
Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.D.R.) insofar as the civil aspect is concerned.

3. Light – those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided (Art. 9, par. 3, RPC).

10
Persons liable for grave or less grave felonies

The principals, accomplices and even accessories

When light felonies are punishable

GR: Light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated.

nd
E.g. An attempt to conceal one’s true name under the 2 par. of Art. 178 is not punishable. Also,
an attempt to commit Alarm and Scandals (Art. 155).

NOTE: It involves insignificant moral and material injuries, if not consummated, the wrong done is so
slight that a penalty is unnecessary (or the de minis principle).

XPN: Light felonies are punishable in all stages when committed against persons or property.

NOTE: It presupposes moral depravity.

Person liable in light felonies

Only the principals and the accomplices are liable in light felonies. Accessories are not liable for light
felonies.

Crimes considered as light felonies

1. Slight physical injuries;

2. Alteration of boundary marks;
3. Malicious mischief (when the value of the damage does not exceed P200 or cannot be
estimated;
4. Intriguing against honor; and
5. Alarm and Scandal.

NOTE: If one assists in the escape of another who committed Alarms and Scandals, he is not liable
under RPC but may be liable under P.D. 1829.

ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

ART. 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.

11
Criminal liability

Criminal liability is incurred by any person who:

1. Committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended;
and
2. 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 (Art. 4).

Requisites of Art 4 Par. 1, “committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended” where greater injury results

1. That an intentional felony has been committed.

2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence
of the felony committed by the offender (US v. Brobst, G.R. No. 4935, October 25, 1909).

Meaning of “direct, natural and logical consequence”

1. Blow was efficient cause of death;

2. Blow accelerated death; or
3. Blow was proximate cause of death.

Q: In an act to discipline his child, the father claims that the death of his child was not intended by
him. Is his contention correct?

A: No. He is liable under Art. 4(1) of the RPC. In order that a person may be criminally liable for a
felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is indispensable (a) that a felony was
committed and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime
committed by the perpetrator. In beating his son and inflicting upon him physical injuries, he
committed a felony. As a direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. His
criminal liability for the death of his son, is thus clear (People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).

Causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended

1. Mistake in identity (error in personae) -- The offender intends the injury on one person but the
harm fell on another. 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.
There was really a mistake in identity (A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead).

2. Mistake in blow (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 and the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime (A, shot at B, but because of
lack of precision, hit C instead).

3. Injurious consequences are greater than that intended (praeter intentionem) -- The injury is on the
intended victim but the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than what was
intended. 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. (A, without intent to kill, struck the victim

12
 on the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head on the pavement.)

NOTE: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Art.

13.

NOTE: The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional felony or dolo. These
situations do not arise out of criminal negligence.

Aberratio ictus vis-à-vis Error in personae

BASIS ABERRATIO ICTUS ERROR IN PERSONAE

A person directed the blow
The victim actually received the
at an intended victim, but
blow, but he was mistaken for
How committed because of poor aim, that
another who was not at the scene of
blow landed on somebody
the crime.
else.
The offender, the intended There are only two persons present
victim as well as the actual in error in personae - the actual (not
Parties present
victim are all at the scene of the intended victim) and the
the crime. offender.

NOTE: Error in Personae and Aberatio Ictus are NOT valid defenses under the “Transfer Intent”
doctrine: the law transfers the criminal intent to the actual victim.

Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some argument so A
stabbed B several times. A’s defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend and that he did
not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Is praeter intentionem properly invoked?

A: No, praeter intentionem is improperly invoked because it is only mitigating if there is a notable
disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. The fact that several wounds were
inflicted on B is hardly compatible with the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.

Mistake of fact

Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused injury to another.
He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent. It is necessary that
had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender
must believe that he is performing a lawful act.

NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies.

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. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful; and

13
 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

Q: Ah Chong was afraid of bad elements so one evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in
his room and placed a chair against the door. After going to bed, he was awakened by someone
who was trying to open the door. He called out, “Who is there?” twice but received no answer. He
then said, “If you enter the room, I will kill you.” At that moment, he was struck by the chair.
Believing he was being attacked, he took a kitchen knife and stabbed the intruder who turned out
to be his roommate. Is he criminally liable?

A: No. There was 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, paragraph 1, which is self-defense (US v. Ah
Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910).

Proximate cause

Proximate cause has been defined as 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 (People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011).

As a 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.

Requisites of proximate cause

1. The direct, natural, and logical cause;

2. Produces the injury or damage;
3. Unbroken by any efficient intervening cause; and
4. Without which the result would not have occurred

Difference between proximate cause and immediate cause

Immediate cause may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion
other causes which resulted in the felony.

Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended
party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made
him risk himself.

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. Toling, L-27097, January 17, 1975).

Example:

X and Y are crew members of cargo vessel. They had a heated argument. X with a big knife in hand
threatened to kill Y. The victim Y, believing himself to be in immediate peril, threw himself into the
water. X died of drowning. In this case, Y is liable for homicide for the death of Y.

Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound inflicted is

14
dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the actor is liable.

It is important that there be no efficient intervening cause.

Instances when the felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury

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

1. There is an efficient intervening cause between the felony committed and the resulting
injury; or
2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Efficient intervening cause

It is an intervening active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act
of the accused.

Q: Cruz and Villacorta were regular customers at Mendeja’s store. At around two o’clock in the
morning of January 23, 2002, while Cruz was ordering bread at Mendeja’s store, Villacorta
suddenly appeared and, without uttering a word, stabbed Cruz on the left side of Cruz’s body
using a sharpened bamboo stick. When Villacorta fled, Mendeja followed chased but failed to
catch him. When Mendeja returned to her store, she saw Aron removing the broken bamboo stick
from Cruz’s body. Mendeja and Aron then brought Cruz to Tondo Medical Center and was treated
as an outpatient. Cruz was later brought to the San Lazaro Hospital on February 14, 2002, where he
died the following day of tetanus infection secondary to stab wound. What is the proximate cause
for the death of Cruz?

A: The proximate cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, and not the stab wound. There had
been an interval of 22 days between the date of the stabbing and the date when Cruz was rushed to
San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus
infection from the stabbing, then the symptoms would have appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later.
Cruz’s stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its subsequent infection with tetanus might
have been the proximate cause of Cruz's death. The infection of Cruz’s stab wound by tetanus was an
efficient intervening cause later or between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his death (People
v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011).

Circumstances which are considered as inefficient intervening causes

1. The weak physical condition of the victim

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as the victim's inability to swim
4. Refusal of the injured party of medical attendance
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical treatment

NOTE: Although the following may have intervened in the commission of the crime, the offender is
still liable for the resulting crime because the proximate cause is caused by him, and they are
inefficient.

15
 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ART. 4 (2)

Requisites of an impossible crime

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

NOTE: Kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against person or property

2. Act was done with evil intent;

3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible or means employed is either inadequate or

ineffectual; and

4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of RPC

NOTE: The 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.

Essence of an impossible crime

The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the
inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime.

Inherent impossibility

Inherent impossibility means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have
materialized.

Kinds of inherent impossibility

1. Legal impossibility – which occurs where the intended acts, even if completed would not
amount to a crime. E.g. killing a dead person.
2. Physical impossibility – where extraneous circumstances unknown to the accused prevent
the consummation of the intended crime. E.g. pick pocketing an empty wallet.

Penalty imposed on impossible crimes

The law imposes penalties to such crimes, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender. The penalty imposed shall be that of arresto mayor or a fine
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.

Reason for penalizing impossible crimes

To teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is
committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal.

NOTE: It is a principle of criminal law that the offender will only be penalized for an impossible crime
if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the RPC. An impossible crime is a crime of

16
last resort.

Q: Four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s
house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled said room
with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the
evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not
in her bedroom at that time. Was it an impossible crime or attempted murder?

A: The SC held that the culprits are liable only for the so-called impossible crime. The factual situation
in this case presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of
accomplishment. Under Art. 4 of the RPC, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime (Intod
v. CA, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). Here however, their acts constitute malicious mischief.

Q: Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing
poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate Jerry
to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because,
unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk. What crime or crimes,
if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit?

A: Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called impossible crime because, with intent to kill, they tried
to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only
because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered
milk, not poison. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act
of trying to poison Jun is criminal.

Impossible crime a formal crime

By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not
consummated at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

Impossible crime vis-à-vis Unconsummated felonies (attempted or frustrated felony)

UNCONSUMMATED FELONIES IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

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

17