UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

College of Arts and Sciences

PolSci 117 Criminal law Book 1

Course: LAW 2
Course Title: Criminal law 1
Course Credits: 3 Units
Contact Hours/Week: 4 Hours
Prerequisite: None

Course Description:
A detailed examination into the characteristics of criminal law, the nature of felonies,
stages of execution, circumstances affecting criminal liability, persons criminally liable; the
extent and extinction of criminal liability of the offender.

Course Outcomes:
At the end of the trimester, the students are expected to:
 Acquire and apply adequate knowledge on the fundamental principles of criminal
law, particularly on the characteristics of criminal law, criminal liability and
circumstances determining criminal liability.
 Determine the elements of the actions of persons who are criminally liable and their
respective criminal participation.
 Understand and justify the corresponding penalties of each crime when violated.

Topic 2:

Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, students are expected to be able to:
 Understand and distinguish varying general terms and concepts used in Criminal law

Instructional Materials:
Review materials issued to students

Teaching-Learning Activity/Lesson Proper:

. Art. 4. Criminal liability.-- Criminal liability shall be incurred:

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

In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:

1. A felony committed; and

2. The felony committed resulted in the commission of another felony.

* The requirement however, must be, that the resulting other felony or felonies must be
direct, material and logical consequence of the felony committed even if the same is not
intended or entirely different from what was in the mind of the offender

 DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the
 natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case,
which would necessarily produce the event.

Requisites:

a. the direct, natural, and logical cause

b. produces the injury or damage

c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause

d. without which the result would not have occurred

 Proximate Cause is negated by:

a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the
accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.

b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

 Requisite for Presumption that the blow was cause of the death – Where there has been an
injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the
presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:

a. victim was in normal health

b. death ensued within a reasonable time

* Even if other causes cooperated in producing the fatal result as long as the wound inflicted
is dangerous, that is, calculated to destroy or endanger life, the actor is liable. This is true
even though the immediate cause of death was erroneous or unskillful medical treatment,
refusal of the victim to submit to surgical operation, or that the deceased was suffering from
tuberculosis, heart disease or other internal malady or that the resulting injury was aggravated
by infection.

* There must however be no efficient intervening cause.

* Article 4, paragraph 1 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.

PROXIMATE CAUSE is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which
unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony
could not have resulted. As a general 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 or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate
cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into
motion other causes which resulted in the felony.

* In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim,
even if the victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death
that victim.

* 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.

* 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.

 CAUSES WHICH PRODUCE A DIFFERENT RESULT:

a. MISTAKE IN IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM – injuring one person who is

mistaken for another e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C because he (A)
mistook C for B.

In ERROR IN PERSONAE, 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.

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

* 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.

* In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a
different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender . But if
the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the
penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating
circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the
crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

* In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.

b. MISTAKE IN BLOW – hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or
fortuitous instances (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were
walking together. A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.

In 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 as well
as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

* If the actor intended the commission of several felonies with a single act, it is not called
aberratio ictus or mistake of blow, simply because there was no mistake.

* Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he
was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important
because the legal effects are not the same.

* In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of
poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting
consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended
victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. If the resulting
physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex. In other words, aberratio ictus,
generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious
crime is imposed in the maximum period.

c. INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – causing

injury graver than intended or expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure B.
However, B died.

In PRAETER INTENTIONEM, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious

disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the
offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in which he committed
the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in
which he committed the crime.

* In praeter intentionem, 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. If the resulting felony can
be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem
does not apply.

* Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose of
intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted
homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the
victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is
the fact that victim was killed.

 In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated
by criminal intent.

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.

 Requisites:

a. Act would have been an offense against persons or property

b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal
law

c. There was criminal intent

d. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were

employed.

 Notes:

* 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,

RAPE etc.

 Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.

 INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already

dead. A shot B. A is liable. If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not
liable.

inherent impossibility, this 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.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended act, even if completed, would not
amount into a crime.

Factual impossibility occurs when an extraneous circumstances is unknown to the actor

or beyond his control to prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

* Under Art. 4, par. 2, the law does not make any distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility. (pp vs. intod)

 Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived

because A used small quantities of poison - frustrated murder.

 Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
because the gun was empty. A is liable.

* Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible
crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an
impossible crime committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If
really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is
committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.

* If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question.
Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender
constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an
impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by
him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson
because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but
subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted
for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC.

* By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not
committed at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. At this stage,
it would be best to distinguish impossible crime from attempted or frustrated felony. The evil
intent is attempted or frustrated felony is possible of accomplishment, while in impossible
crime, it cannot be accomplished because of its inherent impossibility. In attempted or
frustrated felony, what prevented its accomplishment is the intervention of a certain cause or
accident independent of the will of the perpetrator or offender.

Unconsummated felonies (Attempted and frustrated felonies) vs. Impossible crimes

Attempted/Frustrated Felony Impossible Crime

Intent is not accomplished Intent is not accomplished

Intent of the offender possible of Intent of the offender, cannot be

accomplishment accomplished

Accomplishment is prevented by the Intent cannot be accomplished because it is

intervention of certain cause or accident in inherently impossible of accomplishment or
which the offender had no part because the means employed by the
offender is inadequate or ineffectual

Art 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 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.

NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT

When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the
court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be
punished.

Article 5 covers two situations:

(1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The
proper judgment is acquittal, but the court is mandated to report to the Chief
Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.

(2) Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the
conditions surrounding the commission of he crime, the judge should impose the law
(Dura lex sed lex). The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive
to grant executive clemency.

 Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including profiteering,
 and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these
crimes.

Enhancement Activity/Outcome:
A. Read the following cases and discuss the decision of the Supreme court integrating the
concepts learned as cited hereinabove.
1. ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED FELONY in rel. To IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Pp vs. Lagman GR 197807 April 16, 2012
Pp vs. Adallom GR 182522 March 7, 2012
2. PROXIMATE CAUSE
Bataclan vs. Medina 102 Phil 181
Pp vs. Quianzon 62 Phil 162
3. ERROR in PERSONAE;ABBERATIO ICTUS AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Pp vs. Alburquerque 59 Phil 150
Pp v Guillen 85 Phil 307

References:
1. https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/reviewers/criminal-law/
2. https://www.slideshare.net/gmicor/criminal-law-reviewer
3. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/judjuris.html
4. chanrobles.com