CRIMINAL

LIABILITY
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 on account
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
REQUISITES OF PAR. 1 OF ART. 4
1. That an intentional felony has been committed;
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender.

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.
Impossible Crime
-An impossible crime is one where the acts performed
would have been a crime against person or property but
which is not accomplished because of its inherent
impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.
The requisites of an impossible crime are:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against
persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent; and
3. That its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or
the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual. (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13,
2009)
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation
of another provision of the RPC.
What are the 2 kinds of inherent impossibility?
1. Legal impossibility - occurs where the intended acts,
even if completed, would not amount to a crime. It would
apply to those circumstances where
1. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in
violation of the law;
2. there is intention to perform the physical act;
3. there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does
not amount to a crime. (Intod vs. CA, G.R. No. 103119,
October 21, 1992))
Examples:

A. Killing a person already dead. A dead person cannot be injured or killed

again (People vs. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950). If the offender knew that the
victim is already dead when he stabbed him, he will not be liable for an impossible
crime because his mind was not criminal.

B. X stole a watch from the possession of C which turned out to be the watch he
owns but lost 2 weeks earlier. X cannot be the thief of his own property. In theft, it
is essential that the offender take a personal property belonging to another.
2) Factual impossibility - occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.

Examples:

A. A man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.

B. X shoots the place where he thought his victim Z would be, although in reality, Z
was not present in said place.
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 the 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 that evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time.
Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for
attempted murder. CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified the same and
held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. (Intod vs. CA, G.R.
No. 103119, October 21, 1992)

C. Accused was a collector for a company called Mega Foam Int’l Inc. and received a
P10,000 check as payment from a Mega Foam customer. However, instead of
turning over the check to Mega Foam, the accused took the check and had it
deposited into her brother-in-law’s bank account. It turns out the the check was
not funded.
In this case, petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the
crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property. Petitioner's
evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the
check meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly
enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers.
Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the
check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that
prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken
by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the
check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the
cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. (Jacinto vs.
People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009)
What will be the liability of the offender if the crime is not
produced although there is adequate or effectual means
employed?

If the crime is not produced although there is adequate or

effectual means employed, it cannot be impossible crime
but a frustrated felony. So, if a sufficient quantity of poison
was administered to the victim but he did not die, the
felony was not produced due to his possible impunity to the
poison, which is an act independent of the will of the
offender. (Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review)
The act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the RPC

● A administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend B whom he

believed to be pregnant which turned out not to be true. B became ill
for more than 30 days. B will not be liable for impossible crime of
abortion but for for serious physical injuries.

● A, with intent to take the watch of B who was then leaning on a

tree, stabbed the latter and then took his watch. It turned out that B
had been dead hours before. What crime/s were committed?
If B were alive before he was stabbed, A would have been
liable for robbery with homicide. Seemingly, A is liable for
impossible crime of homicide because there is an inherent
impossibility of killing B because the latter was already dead
before the assault. But A could not be liable for impossible
crime of homicide because also committed another crime
which is theft. Thus, A is liable for theft.
A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a
person hitched a ride. Because this person was exquisitely
dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he
continued driving. When he reached a motel, A suddenly
swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but
he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a
man, and so he pushed him out of the car, and gave him fist
blows. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there
any crime committed at all?
It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been
a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of
lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger.
There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under
Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under
circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of
violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if
the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed.
This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of
lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is
committed under circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under
the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman.
 Is there an impossible crime of rape?

Yes, because rape now is a crime against persons.

Ex. A raped the corpse of Z. (Boado, Notes and Cases
on the Revised Penal Code)
Why is impossible crime punished?

● The rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal

tendencies. (Intod vs. CA)

● The purpose of punishing impossible crime is to suppress

criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the
offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is
a criminal.
What is the penalty for impossible crime?

When the person intending to commit an offense has

already performed the acts for the execution of the same
but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of
the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially inadequate to
produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind
the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by
the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. (Art. 59, RPC)
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 penal 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.