Felonies by means of dolo or with malice.

(Intentional Felonies)

 by means of deceit (dolo) – There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.
 Dolus – intent to do an injury to another.
 Requisites:
o Freedom
o Intelligence
o Intent – Intent to commit the act with malic, being purely a mental process, is presumed
and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
 Presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
 Shown by the overt acts of a person
 Criminal Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
 There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
 Distinction between INTENT and MOTIVE
o Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result –
it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime. On the other hand, motive
implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When there is
motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the intent. But a crime
may be committed without motive.
 Examples (Crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence):
o Murder
o Treason
o Robbery
o Malicious Mischief

Proximate Cause

 “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.”
 Requisites:
o The direct, natural and logical cause
o Produces the injury or damage
o Unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
o Without which the result would have not occurred
 Proximate cause is negated if:
o There is an active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious acts of
the accused which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
o Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
 General Rule:
o 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.
o The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the
immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
Felonies by means of culpa or fault. (Culpable Felonies)

 by means of fault (culpa) – There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
 Imprudence – deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B because it
was raining – reckless imprudence.
 Negligence – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually involves lack
of foresight. Acts committed negligently are voluntary.
 Requisites:
o Freedom
o Intelligence
o Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
o Lack of intent

Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum

 Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which literally means, that
the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of special laws
are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.
 Note:
o Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita.
o Intentional felonies are always mala in se.
o 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.
o When the special laws require that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully,
criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise.
o When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is wrong only because a law punishes the
same.

“By committing a felony even if the crime is different from what intended” - “Although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.”

 The following lines presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It
must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
 The causes which the offender intended are: (1) mistake in the identity of the victim; (2) mistake in
the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another; and (3) the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended.
 Under paragraph 1, Article 4, a person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if-
a. There is a mistake in the identity of the victim – error in personae.
 Injuring one person who is mistaken for another.
 The intended victim is not at the scene of the crime.
 Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which
was intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error
in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
b. There is a mistake in the blow – aberratio ictus.
 Hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances.
  The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
 Generally, gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more
serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.
c. The injurious result is greater than that intended - praeter intentionem
 Causing injury graver than intended or expected
 Praeter Intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.
 In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must
be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony

Mistake of Fact

 A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not
criminally liable.
 Requisites:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them
to be;
2. Intention of the accused is lawful; and
3. Mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a
notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences. In this circumstance, intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is
diminished.

Impossible crime

 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. (Article 4, par. 3)
 Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property.
2. Act was done with evil intent.
3. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were
employed.
4. Act performed should not constitute a violation of other provisions of the R.P.C.
 Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another
who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
 The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
 There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
 Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
 Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, et
 Inherent Impossibility
o Means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If
the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same
mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.
  Employment of inadequate means
o A used poison to kill B. However, B survived because A used small quantities of poison –
frustrated murder.
 Ineffectual means
o A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was
empty. A is liable.

Attempted Felony

 There is an attempt when the offender begins the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
He has not performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
 Elements of attempted felony
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts;
 Requisite:
 That there be external acts;
 Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intened to be
committed.
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than
his spontaneous desistance.

Frustrated Felony

 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.
 Elements of frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all the 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.
 Requisites of frustrated felony:
1. That the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony; and
2. That the felony is not produce due to causes independent of the perpetrators will.

Consummated Felony

 A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present.

Rules on Light Felonies

 Light Felonies are infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding 200php, or both is provided. (Art.9, par.3)
  Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of
those committed against persons or property (punishable even if attempted or frustrated).
 The commission of felonies against persons or proper presupposes in the offender moral
depravity. For that reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or
property are punishable.

CASES

Title: Khitri, et al. vs People

GR No. 210192
Date: July 4, 2016
Topic: