CRIMINAL LAW 1

Art. 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only by 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.

Elements of felonies

1. Act or omission

1. Act

1. Any physical movement tending to produce some effect, not necessarily successful

2. only external acts are punishable

2. Omission

1. Failure to do/perform a duty one is bound to do/when there is law requiring it

examples:

Article 275 (1). Abandonment of persons in danger

Article 213 (2) (b) Illegal exaction

Article 116 Misprisio of treason

2. The act or omission should be punishable by the RPC

Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

Felony - punishable by the RPC

Crime/offense - punishable by special laws (Article 10)

3. Act/omission is performed by means of dolo or culpa

CRIMINAL LAW 1

Classification of felonies

1. Intentional (deceit)

1. The offender is malicious/has acted with malice;

Dolus is equivalent to malice, which the intent to do an injury to another.

The offender acts with malice in performing/omitting an act with the intent to cause
injury to person, property, or right of another

There are crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence such
as murder, treason, robbery, and malicious mischief.

2. With deliberate intent; and

3. Has the intention to cause an injury.

2. Culpable (fault)

1. The offender is not malicious/has acted without malice;

2. Wrong is out of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, lack of skill; and

A person who causes an injury, without intention to cause an evil may be held liable

Imprudence indicates deficiency in action, goes with lack of skill.

Negligence indicates deficiency in perception, goes with lack of foresight

3. No intent to cause injury.

Regardless if the act is committed by means of dolo or culpa, the act is VOLUNTARY.

1. CLASSICAL THEORY — the basis of criminal liability is free will

2. MAN IS A RATIONAL BEING. This has to be proven otherwise to fall under Art. 12

3. Deliberate intent is voluntary, as well as the imprudence in culpable felonies although

the latter has no malice.

REQUISITES OF DOLO

1. Freedom — If the offender did not freely execute the act, he shall be exempt from criminal
liability (Art 12 par. 5 and 6)

2. Intelligence— necessary to determine morality of human acts. No intelligence, no crime.

(Art. 12 par. 1,2, and 3)
CRIMINAL LAW 1

3. Intent — being purely a mental process, this is presumed based on the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act. The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a
person.

CRIMINAL INTENT is presume from the commission of an unlawful act. But the
presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act
which is not unlawful.

Where 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.

VOLUNTARY ACT IS ONLY GENERAL INTENT. IN SOME FELONIES,

SPECIFIC INTENT IS REQUIRED.

EXAMPLE: HOMICIDE - INTENT TO KILL

THEFT, ROBBERY - INTENT TO GAIN

REQUISITES FOR CULPABLE FELONIES

1. FREEDOM

2. INTELLIGENCE

3. IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF FORESIGHT/SKILL

NOTE:

1. Mistake in the identity of the victim is NOT RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE.

MISTAKE OF FACT

Ignorance of the law excuses no one, but ignorance of fact RELIEVES criminal liability
(Ignorantia facti excusat).

MISTAKE OF FACT- is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused
injury to another.

“An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which
arises upon the commission of a felonious act.”

REQUISITES:
CRIMINAL LAW 1

1. The act would be lawful if the facts the offender had known were true.

2. Intention in the act is lawful.

3. Mistake should not borne from carelessness.

1. In People v. Oanis, they were at fault by shooting the vicitim contrary to

instructions and without verifying his identity;

2. Error in personae does not apply. Lack of intent to kill the deceased
because his intention was to kill another does not extinguish criminal
liability;

MAXIMS:

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

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

UNDER SPECIAL LAWS

1. Dolo is NOT REQUIRED.

1. INTENT TO COMMIT THE CRIME - criminal intent

2. INTENT TO PERPETRATE THE ACT - it is enough that a prohibited act is done

freely and consciously.

Application:

Mala in Se - criminal intent is required (RPC)

Mala in Prohibita - intentionally doing the act is sufficient for prosecution (THE ONES
PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS)

Whent he doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to
public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself. GOOD FAITH AND
ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT A VALID DEFENSE IN CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER SPECIAL LAWS.
CRIMINAL LAW 1

INTENT VS MOTIVE

MOTIVE- THE MOVING POWER WHICH IMPELS ONE TO ACTION FOR A RESULT.

Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for
purposes of conviction.

INTENT - THE PURPOSE TO USE A MEANS TO EFFECT SUCH RESULT