ARTICLE 4. Criminal liability.

— Criminal liability shall be incurred: (Call to recite)

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.

This article does not refer to the manner of incurring criminal liability because it is covered
by Art 3 hereof (DOLO and CULPA) This article deals on HOW criminal liability is
INCURRED.

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

As a GENERAL RULE, when the person commits a CRIMINAL ACT with intent (malice or dolo), he
intends the consequences of his acts. (This is a presumption)

If a person puts poison in one’s person’s drink and the latter dies, he intends the consequence of the
act: The person’s DEATH.

Paragraph 1 speaks of the following DOCTRINES IN CRIMINAL LAW.

1) The DOCTRINE OF IMMEDIATE CAUSE:

- The WRONGFUL ACT is the IMMEDIATE CAUSE of the FELONY COMMITTED or the resulting
INJURY. We call this the doctrine of IMMEDIATE CAUSE.
Thus, if you stab someone and he dies, the act of stabbing is a wrongful act and the IMMEDIATE
CAUSE, or the resulting injury is the death of the victim. (The offender is always liable for the
consequence or resulting injury or immediate cause of his wrongful act.)

2) DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE:

But there are cases where a person although he commits a criminal act, the consequence is not the
one intended by him because the result is different from what he expected or intended to happen.
This is precisely the meaning of Art 4, par.1. The accused who is performing a criminal act is liable
for something that he did not intend to happen.

For example: Mr. A want to inflict physical injury upon Mr. B by punching him in his face without
intention of killing him. But when Mr. B is hit, the latter falls into the ground and his head hits a
hard object causing upon him brain hemorrhage and as a result he dies. Is Mr. A liable to the death
of that person although the latter did intend to kill him but only to injure him physically?

Answer: Applying Art. 4 par. 1, Mr. A is LIABLE for B’s DEATH because Mr. A incurs criminal
liability:

A) By committing a felony (delict) (the act of punching him is an external act of felony)
B) Although the wrongful act done (the resulting death) is different from that which Mr. A
intended (physical injuries only).
In other words, a person committing a felony is liable not only for the result or consequence
INTENDED BY HIM but even for the consequences or results NOT INTENDED BY HIM. Th
consequence or result maybe FORESEEN or even UNFORSEEN.

Under this doctrine OF PROXIMATE CAUSE, a person liable even for the result not intended by him if
the wrongful act of the offender is the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the felony committed or the resulting
injury.

MEANING: PROXIMATE CAUSE:

Proximate cause is the 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.

Proximate cause is 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.

And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury,
either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final
event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause
which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as
an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his
act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. (MARIANO C.
MENDOZA AND ELVIRA LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES LEONORA J. GOMEZ AND GABRIEL V.
GOMEZ, Respondent G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014, SECOND DIVISION)
Art. 4, par. 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting
felony.

There is a legal maxim “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of an evil cause.”
In Latin: “El que de la causa del mal causado.” As a general rule: A person is liable for all
the DIRECT, NATURAL and LOGICAL consequences of his felonious act. Whether the result of the of
the wrongful act is foreseen or unforeseen, intended or untended. This is the doctrine of
proximate cause.

EXAMPLES:

1. The accused threatened or chased the victim with a knife jumped on the water and drowned and
died because he did not know how to swim.

2. When the victim was suffering from internal malady, the offender gave him a blow which caused
his death. If the blow was the efficient cause of death, accelerated his death, was the proximate
cause of his death.
3. The failure of the victim to submit to surgical operation after a blow was made will not excuse
him from the consequence of his act. The victim is not obliged to undergo surgical operation to
relieve the accused of the natural consequence of his illegal act.
4. A person shouted fire and all the movie goers jumped and scampered to safety to the fire
escape, but some died, the person who shouted fire is criminally liable

5. In a quarrel, the victim was wounded, and the doctor put a bandage to control the bleeding.
When the victim got home, because of the pain, he removed the bandage which resulted to a
profuse bleeding, and he died. The offender who caused the wound though slight is liable for the
death of the victim.

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

The SC in one case held that the precious moment in a man’s life is the last minute or seconds of his
life or the time he is about to die. Even if the person is dying, if one suffocates him to end his agony,
one will be liable for murder because he is utterly defenseless.

AS LONG AS THE WRONGFUL ACT or FELONY COMMITTED IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF

THE RESULTING INJURY, the accused is liable for the resulting injury as long as it is the
direct, natural and logical consequence of that wrongful act.

1. Natural – refers to the occurrence in the ordinary course of human life and events.

2. Logical – rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting damage or
injury.

3. THE DOCTRINE OF EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE (Independent Supervening

Cause)

Efficient Intervening cause affects proximate cause. In PROXIMATE CAUSE there must be a CAUSE-
AND-EFFECT relationship between the resulting injury and the wrongful act, intended or not
intended, which is UNBROKEN by EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE.

Thus, the defendant can only be liable for a plaintiff’s injury if the defendant’s act was the
cause of the injury. In other words, there must be a direct connection between the plaintiff’s
harm and the defendant’s actions.

An intervening cause is an event that occurs after the defendant’s negligence that
contributes to the plaintiff’s harm.

What is an Independent, efficient or Superseding Cause?

A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. A superseding cause disrupts the
causal chain because the link between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury
no longer exists.
What Happens when a Cause is determined to be an Independent or Superseding Cause?

The defendant will not be liable for the plaintiff’s injury when there is a superseding cause because
the plaintiff will not be able to establish causation. This means that the plaintiff will be stuck with all
of the bills related to the accident.

EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE between CAUSE and EFFECT:

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE if there is an efficient intervening cause between the cause
and effect? Answer: The resulting injury is not the felony committed . The accused is only
liable to the extent of his felonious act not the resulting injury. In other words, if there is an
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE between the wrongful act and the consequence or result not
INTENDED, the accused is only liable to the extent of his felonious act and not the
resulting injury or consequence or wrongful act done:

Examples:

1. A light physical injury was inflicted by A to B. But B deliberately immerses his body to a
contaminated water, thereby causing the injury more serious. A is not liable for the
serious injury but only to the slight physical injury.

2. A struck B’s mouth causing injury upon his body. One month after, B died because
there was prevalent fever in the area. If his death was due to the prevalent fever and
not because of the blow, A is not liable for B death but only for slight physical injury of
striking the mouth.

In the first example, the deliberate immersion of his wound to contaminated water causing
him serious injury as an efficient intervening cause. A is only liable only to slight physical injury and
not to serious physical injury.

In the second example, the death of B is the result of prevalent fever in the and not the injury
sustained by him from A. The prevalent fever is an efficient intervening cause.

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE: EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE:

Facts:

At around 2 o’clock on January 22, 2002, while Cruz was ordering bread at the store of
Mendeja, Villacorta suddenly appeared behind Cruz and stabbed him with a bamboo stick. Villacorta
fled, Mendeja was not able to chase him. Cruz was treated for his wound on the same day.
 On February 14, 2002, he was brought to Tondo Medical Center; he died the following day of
tetanus infection.

Issue:

Is the stabbing of the bamboo stick by Villacorta the proximate cause of the death of Cruz?
What is proximate cause?

Decision:
According to the Supreme Court, his act of stabbing Cruz is not the proximate cause of his
death because tetanus "The incubation period of tetanus, i.e., the time between injury and the
appearance of unmistakable symptoms, ranges from 2 to 56 days. However, over 80 percent of
patients become symptomatic within 14 days. A short incubation period indicates severe disease, and
when symptoms occur within 2 or 3 days of injury the mortality rate approaches 100 percent.” There
is sufficient doubt as to whether the stabbing caused the death of Cruz since there is 22 days
between the incident of the stabbing and the appearance of the symptoms of tetanus if it had
happened within 14 days of the stabbing there will be no doubt as to whether the stabbing is the
proximate cause.
According to the Supreme Court “ultimately, we can only deduce that 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.”

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.” Villacorta is only liable for slight physical injuries and not the crime of murder.

(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ORLITO VILLACORTA, Accused-

Appellant. G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011)

Going back to the doctrine of immediate cause – THE OFFENDER IS LIABLE IF THE
RESULTING INJURY IS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF HIS FELONIOUS ACT or WRONG ACT.

But PROXIMATE CAUSE is not necessarily the IMMEDIATE CAUSE.

EXAMPLE: A, B, C, D and E were driving their cars in Ayala Avenue, Makati. A’s car was ahead
and when it reached the intersection, the traffic light suddenly turned red, so A immediately stopped
followed by B, C, D and E. However, E was not aware that the traffic light turned red so he bumped
D, D hit the car of C, C hit B and finally B hit the car of A.

In this case, the immediate cause to the damage of the car of A is B, but that is not the
proximate cause. The proximate cause is the car of E which set into motion the cars to bump each
other.

Therefore, a proximate cause maybe a cause which is far and remote from the consequences
which sets into motion other causes which resulted the felony.
 RULE: The one who caused the proximate cause is liable. The one who caused the
IMMEDIATE cause is also liable. But if the cause is merely contributory, not totally liable.

4. E DOCTRINE OF INTERVENING ACTIVE FORCE:

5. IS THIS DOCTRINE of INTERVENING ACTIVE FORCE ?

I am now talking about ACTIVE FORCE and not merely an efficient intervening cause.
INTERVENING ACTIVE FORCE affects PROXIMATE CAUSE.

-When there is an active force that intervened between the felony and the resulting injury, the
offender is not liable of the resulting injury because it is not the proximate cause of the felony
committed.

ELEMENTS:

1. When there is an ACTIVE FORCE that intervened between the felony committed and the
resulting injury and that ACTIVE FORCE MUST BE A DISTINCT ACT OR FACT
ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN FROM THE FELONIOUS ACT COMMITTED BY THE
ACCUSED.

2. AND the RESULTING INJURY is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Example: A punched B which deformed the face of B. Because of his facial deformity, C, a lady being
courted by B turned him down. B feeling that he was not handsome because of his deformity
committed suicide because C turned him down. Suicide is an active force which is a distinct
act absolutely foreign from the felonious act of A and that B’s suicide is his intentional
act.

ART. 4 PAR. 1 SPEAKS ONLY OF INTENTIONAL FELONY: (Not culpable one)

To be liable for felony and all its direct, logical, and natural consequences under Art. 4, the following
are very important considerations:

1. The person must be committing a felony.

2. The felony is being committed with INTENT (dolo). Because the law speaks of a wrongful
act done be different from that intended. In other words, the offender commits the act with
deliberate intent.

You do not apply this par. 1 to culpable felonies but Art. 365 of RPC. This is also not
applicable to crimes punishable by special laws.
THEREFORE, a person who is not committing a felony is not liable for the consequences of his
own acts or not liable for the result which is not intended by him.

EXAMPLE: Mr. A decided to commit suicide and jumped off the top of the building but instead of
hitting the ground, hit another person B who died instead of A. Is a liable for the death of B?

Answer: A is not liable for intentional felony of homicide because he is not committing a felony when
he committed suicide. There is no law under the RPC punishing suicide but only assisting a person to
commit a suicide. So, A is not liable for the consequences of his act of suicide. BUT MR. A MAYBE
LIABLE FOR CULPABLE FELONY because he should have done it with care when he committed
such act. Art. 4 par. 1 does not cover culpable felony

EXAMPLE: A policeman who was pursuing to arrest an armed prisoner who had just escaped from
jail, fired his pistol to him when he refused to surrender. But the slug after hitting the prisoner turn
around a hit a bystander. The police is not liable for the injury sustained by the bystander because
the policeman is not committing a felony.

Fulfilling a duty by arresting the accused is not committing a felony except when the police did not
exercise due care in firing upon the prisoner. He can however be held liable for culpable felony for
not exercising due care when he fired the pistol in a public place.
THERE ARE THREE (3) WAYS ART. 4, par 1, maybe committed:

1. ABBERATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow – here the offender directed the blow to the intended
victim but because of poor aim, it landed on somebody else. The intended victim here as well as the
actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

This gives rise to a complex crime under Art 48 of RPC as when a single act results to two or more
grave or less grave felonies. It is when person delivers the blow to the intended victim, but it landed
to a third party.

EXAMPLE: A saw his enemy B and shot him but due to mistake in the aim, it was C who was
hit and seriously injured. A’s act constitutes the following crimes: As far as B is concerned, A
committed attempted murder. But as far as C is concerned, SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY for there
was no intent to kill him. Both results from a single act, less grave or grave felonies.

In the book of Atty Abelardo Estrada, A committed frustrated murder against C because of a so called
THE TRANSFERRED INTENT RULE. He said that the intent to kill of A against B is transferred to
C. Since this is a complex crime of Attempted Murder and Frustrated Murder, Art. 48 is applicable
thus the penalty for the more serious offense is imposable in its maximum period. So, the penalty to
be imposed upon A is Frustrated murder and attempted murder to be imposed in its IN ITS
MAXIMUM PERIOD of FRUSTRATED MURDER, the most serious offense).

2. ERROR IN PERSONAE – this is mistake in identity - the intended victim here 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 of identity. The crime committed is different from
what is intended. This only mitigates the criminal liability.

EXAMPLE: A wanted to kill B. Taking advantage of nighttime, he shot a man whom he believed as B
but in turned out to be his father. His father died as a consequence.

What is the crime intended to be committed by A? Murder. What is the crime actually committed by
A? Parricide. The crime committed is Parricide but the imposable penalty applying Art. 49 (NOT
ART 48) is not of a parricide but of the crime of murder.

ARTICLE 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended . — In cases in which the felony
committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit; the
following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.

THE RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. When the two crimes carry a different penalty, the penalty for the lesser offense
must be imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the crimes committed carry the same higher penalty, error in personae is not a mitigating
circumstance and shall not affect the criminal liability of the person. The penalty for the
crime actually committed shall be imposed.

In the case at bar, since the penalty of murder and parricide is the same, the penalty shall be
imposed is that of parricide. No mitigation.

But supposed A wanted to kill his father by taking advantage of nighttime and he shot his victim, but
it turns out the one killed was a stranger. What is the crime intended to be committed? PARRICIDE.
What is the crime actually committed? HOMICIDE.

Applying Art 49, the penalty for the homicide shall be imposed only that in the MAXIMUM PERIOD.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM (PI) – when the consequence went beyond that is intended.

In PI, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the
offender and the felony committed.

This means that the felony committed cannot be foreseen from the act of the offender. because if
the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of
praeter intentionem does not apply.

If PI is present in the commission of the crime, the accused is entitled to mitigation of his penalty by
one period. This is an ordinary mitigating circumstance under. Art 13, par. 3.

CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF PRAETER INTERTIONEM:

Example 1: A without intent to kill B boxed him and B fell on a sharp object that caused his death. In
this case, B’s death is not intended by B. Is A liable? Yes, but he is entitled to mitigation under Art
13, par. 3 as he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Example 2: A poked a gun at B and because of fear, B died of cardiac arrest, A can be held liable of
homicide but is entitled to mitigation of penalty by one period.

Example 3: A stabbed B during their drinking spree because of their argument of who was the best
NBA player. A stabbed B eleven times in different parts of his body. When prosecuted for murder,
his defense is he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong or to kill B. Is that defense tenable?
NO. His defense that he had no intention so grave a wrong is hardly incompatible with the idea that
he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong. His criminal intent is determined by the means he
used to kill B and not of what he claims or thinks. Likewise, the fact that B dies, it is conclusively
presumed that he had an intent to kill B.

Example 4:

A was a homosexual. B ridiculed him while he was going to a restroom. Because of his irritation, A
stabbed B with the lady’s comb at the back with a pointed handle killing Mr. B. When prosecuted for
murder, A’s defense was he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong in killing B. Is PI applicable?

Answer: No. While there is a notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony, the manner in committing the crime part by hitting the vital part of the body shows his
intention to kill the victim. (Sana sinabonutan nya na lang).

In criminal law, the intent of the offender is determined on the basis of the means employed and the
manner the crime was committed and not what was in the mind of the offender. In other words, the
criminal intent is disclosed in the means employed or manner of commission of crime.

EXAMPLE 5:
Two accused entered a baker to rob the owner. They hogtied the owner and because he was
talkative, one of the accused got a pandesal and put it into his mouth. Because the owner tried to
wiggle from the bandage, the pandesal slipped into his throat and died because of suffocation.

The offender was convicted for robbery with homicide because of the resulting death although their
intention was to rob only. The SC gave the convict the benefit of Art 13 par. 3, Prater Intertionem,
that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong. The accused really did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong because what they put in the mouth was a pandesal and not a piece rag. The means
employed is not capable of producing death if only a woman did not swallow the pandesal.

PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED IN PI: This an ordinary mitigating circumstance only which will
reduce the penalty by one period. The more Serious offense not intended by the offender befalls to
the same person. Praeter interionem is not covered by Art 49+

ANOTHER WAY OF INCURRING CRIMINAL LIABILITY: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)

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.

WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE CRIME? Cite par. 2 of Art. 4

ELEMENTS:

1. The act performed would be an offense against persons and property.

2. The act was done with evil intent.
3. The accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual.
4. The act performed should NOT constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

Just remember all the 4 requirements, you can answer a question involving the issue of impossible
crime.

ELEMENT NO. 1 – The act performed would be an offense against person or property. –

The offender here INTENDS to commit a felony against PERSONS or PROPERTY.

For purposes of impossible crime, it is important to know what comprises CRIMES AGAINST PERSON:
See Title 8 of Book 2 and CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY IS TITLE 10 of Book 2.

What are crimes against persons under Book 2:

1. Parricide (Art 246)

2. Homicide (248)
3. Murder (249)
4. Infanticide (255)
5. Abortion
6. Duel
7. Physical injuries
 8. Rape (Art 266-A)

CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY:

1. Robbery
2. Brigandage
3. Theft
4. Usurpation
5. Culpable insolvency
6. Swindling or estafa
7. Chatter mortgage
8. Arson and other crimes of destruction
9. Malicious mischief.

In impossible crime, the act committed by the accused did not turn out to be a crime of PERSONS
AND PROPERTY because if the act committed becomes a crime against persons or property under
those titles, it is not punishable as an impossible crime but as an offense punishable by Book II, Titles
8 and 10 on Crimes against Persons and Property.

Rule: If the act of the accused which did NOT turn out to be an offense against the crimes of
PERSONS or PROPERTY, Forget about impossible crime.
WHY THE ACT OF THE ACCUSED DID NOT TURN OUT TO BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST
PERSONS AND PROPERTY?

ELEMENT NO 2 – (A) It is because its accomplishment of the said felonies is

INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE or (B) THE MEANS EMPLOYED BY THE OFFENDER IS EITHER
INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL.

Meaning of Inherent impossibility =this is an act of offender which is by nature one impossible to
accomplish. It could either be

(1) legal impossibility (2) Physical impossibility.

EXAMPLES: INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT.

(1) An act which would be an offense against persons. Killing a dead person is a legal impossibility.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. 
The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category. On the other hand, factual
impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime. (People vs. Hesson Callao, et. el., G.R. NO.
228945, March 14, 2018, Second Division)

(1) Stealing a watch from a person which turn out to be his.

(2) 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.
EXAMPLE OF EMPLOYMENT OF INADEQUATE MEANS:

(1) Poisoning a person but putting a small quantity of poison not adequate to kill. (small
quantity of poison not adequate to kill. BUT if it is adequate to kill but the victim has a
strong resistance to poison that is why he did not die, it is frustrated murder)

EMPLOYMENT OF INEFFECTUAL MEANS:

(1) Trying to call somebody with poison but what he has he mixed a sugar instead of true
poison. It is ineffectual means.

(2) Pulling a trigger of a revolver and did not fire because the revolver is empty which is
not known to the offender. But if there is a bullet inside but it did not fire because it
jams, it is attempted murder.

ELEMENT NO. 3 – The accused did the act with EVIL INTENT.

He must have an intent to cause injury. Example: Knowing that his enemy is already dead. He still
stabbed him; it is not impossible crime. There is no more evil intent to injure him because he is
already dead.

ELEMENT NO. 4 – The act must not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

If the act of the accused is already a violation of another provision of the RPC, even if the act
constitutes an impossible crime, the accused will not be punished for impossible crime but on the
crime actually violated under the RPC.

EXAMPLE 1:

A and B are constantly quarreling against each other. So, A planned of killing B. One night, A climbed
at the house of B entering through an open window. Upon seeing B sleeping, he stabbed him with a
mortal wound not knowing that B is already dead because he had a cardiac arrest earlier. An
immediately fled through the same window.

Question: Is an impossible crime committed? Yes, you cannot murder a dead person. Just apply
the first 3 requisites.

Question: Is A criminally liable for impossible crime. No, although impossible crime was committed.
A should be prosecuted only for trespass to dwelling under Art 280 of the RPC since he entered
through the window not intended of the purpose.

The principle is this: the wrongdoer shall be punished only with impossible crime when
his acts cannot be punished under any provision of the RPC.

EXAMPLE 2:
A, a spinster developed a habit of sleeping naked. Her houseboy developed a habit of climbing the
roof to watch here therefrom. One night, the houseboy could not control himself, so she went to the
room of A and laid on top of her and SEXUALLY abused her. But she turned out to be dead by then?

Is there an impossible crime? Yes, because if the houseboy is successful in the rape, the crime could
have been a crime against person. Rape is now a crime against person under Anti Rape law which
took effect on October 22, 1997. No longer under Crime against Chastity.

But in the same example, if the houseboy merely touched her private part and fondled her breast
but not knowing that she was already a dead person at that time, is there an impossible crime?

No, because in that case, if the houseboy was successful, it could have been a crime against chastity
as Acts of lasciviousness not against person or Rape. In this case, did the houseboy commit a crime?
No. He could not commit a crime against the dead spinster for acts of lasciviousness. The houseboy
was just a stupid and sick guy.

EXAMPLE 3:

Mr. A entered a department store at about midnight to steal when it was already closed. He went
directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. After he succeeded in opening the vault,
he found out that the vault was empty?

Is there an impossible crime? No. That is true if there is nothing more to steal. There are so many
things inside to steal. The fact that the vault turned out to be empty is not really inherently
impossible to commit the crime of robbery. The crime committed is attempted robbery if he has not
stolen other items inside the store.

EXAMPLE 4:

A and B were lovers. A wanted to marry B except that A is already married to X. So, A thought of
killing X and one day he prepared a breakfast he placed a dose of arsenic poison into the food of X.
Then X consumed all the food prepared by A but since X was healthy, strong and hardworking, she
developed a resistance at any kind of poisoning and the arsenic applied TO her food did not have
any effect on her. Is there an impossible crime?

Answer: No impossible crime. What prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition
of X. It implies that if X was not of such physical condition, the poison would have taken effect.
Hence, it is not really inherently impossible to realize the killing. The crime committed is frustrated
homicide.

How about if A mistakenly placed a “vitsin” thinking that it is a poison and X suffered serious
abdominal pain and was hospitalized. Is there an impossible crime?

None, it would be a case of serious physical injury if the act does not amount to some other crime.

DO NOT CONFUSE IMPOSSIBLE CRIME with ATTEMPTED or FRUSTRATED STAGE OF THE

OFFENSE.
EXAMPLE:

A and B are enemies. Upon seeing B, A got the revolver of his father and shot B but the revolver did
not discharge because the bullets were old. If it were new, it would have fired.

Is there an impossible crime? None, it was purely accidental because the bullets were old. This is
attempted murder. There is a cause there other than his spontaneous desistance. But it if were
empty because he realized that there was no bullet inside, there is an impossible crime.

CAUTION!!! Be careful in answering the question, Is there an impossible crime committed? Answer
the question based on the facts given in the case.

If the facts constitute an impossible crime, then answer that there is. And state the reason for its
INHERENT IMPOSSIBILITY whether LEGAL or PHYSICAL or the employment of INADEQUATE
MEANS.

If the question is: IS HE LIABLE OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME? This is a catching question because, the
facts may suggest that there is impossible crime but there is no liability for it.
WHY? Because of the 4th element, the act must not constitute a violation of another provision
of the RPC.

If the act of the accused is already a violation of another provision of the RPC, even if the act
constitutes an impossible crime, the accused will not be punished for impossible crime but on the
crime actually violated under the RPC.

To play safe, you answer: Yes, he committed impossible crime, but the offender will not be
prosecuted for that impossible rime but for the crime of _____________ state the crime actually
committed.

But this purpose is already served when HE IS PROSECUTED FOR ANOTHER CRIME PUNISHABLE
UNDER THE RPC. He is no longer to be prosecuted for Impossible Crime.

All these elements must be present so that the act is punishable as an impossible crime under Art 59
of the RPC.

WHY IS IMPOSSIBLE CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER RPC? The reason is to teach the offender
a lesson because of his criminal propensity and perversity to commit a crime. To suppress criminal
propensity of the accused. Objectively, the offender did not commit a crime but
subjectively, he is a criminal.

Is an impossible crime really a crime?
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal
liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency
or propensity although no crime was committed.

MODIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

Intod vs. CA, et al. 215 SCRA 52. In this case, 4 culprits all armed with heavy firearms and with
intent to kill, went to their intended victim’s house and after having identified the bedroom where the
intended victim stayed, all four fired and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking that the
intended victim was already there at about 10 pm. It so happened that the intended victim did not
come home that night and so was not in the bedroom. The 4 were prosecuted for attempted murder.
Convicted in RTC, the CA affirmed the conviction.
But the SC modified the ruling declaring that the liability of the 4 culprits is only for IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME. As result, the 4 convicts were only sentenced to Arresto Mayor of 6 months imprisonment
instead of Prision Mayor (6 years or more) for the felonious act committed with intent to kill.

This SC decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed. Some members of the Bench and
Bar spoke out against the soundness of this ruling. For me, it is attempted murder because although
the 4 accused did not perform all acts of execution which would produce a felony of murder, it was
due to cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offenders.

Furthermore, the wrongful acts causing the destruction of the house of the intended victim already
negates the idea of impossible crime. They can be held liable for the destruction of property due to
hate of the crime of malicious mischief. But whether you agree or not, that is the decision.

QUESTION: Peter was a collector for a company called San Miguel Food Intl. and received a
P100,000 check as payment from a client for San Miguel Food Intl.  However, instead of turning over
the check to San Miguel Food Intl, Peter took the check and had it deposited into his brother’s
account.  It turns out the check was not funded. Prosecuted by San Miguel Food Intl, for Qualified
Theft. Peter however argues that he committed only an Impossible Crime. If you were the Judge, for
what crime, if there is any, would you convict Peter? Explain your answer.
ANSWER: As a Judge, I would convict Peter of Impossible Crime and not for Qualified Theft. Under
Art. 309, of the Revised Penal Code, the personal property subject of the theft must have
some value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen.  Article 309,
where the law provides that the penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on the value of
the thing stolen. In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to San Miguel
Food Intl but the same was apparently without value, as it was subsequently dishonored.
Mr. Peter is liable for Impossible Crime. That the offense cannot be produced because the
commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment. To be impossible, the act
intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be
either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to
qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime. This case is closely akin to the above example of factual
impossibility given in Intod case. In this case, Mr. Peter performed all the acts to consummate the
crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property. Mr. Peter's evil intent cannot be denied, as
the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for San Miguel Food Intl showed his intent to gain
or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, he would have received the
face value thereof, which was not rightfully his. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous
circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to Peter at the time, that prevented the
crime from being produced. (Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009)

PENALTY IMPOSED FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:

ARTICLE 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the

crime because the means employed, or the aims sought are impossible. —
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.

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.

The duties of the court in connection the following:

(1) with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law and
(2) in cases of excessive penalties.

ONE: Acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law

When an act or omission appears not punishable by law and the court deems it proper to repress
such act. What is then the duty of the court?

1. The court must render a proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused.
(There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.)

2. The judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Sec of Justice stating the
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made subject of penal legislation.
TWO : In case of excessive penalties

FOR EXAMPLE: An accused is found guilty of a crime where the penalty imposed by law is death. For
the judge, the penalty imposed is clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of
malice and the injury caused by the offense.

What shall be his duty?

1. He should impose the proper penalty even if it is excessive and should not suspend the
execution of the sentence.

2. The judge submit a statement to the chief executive through the Sec of Justice,
recommending executive clemency.

IMPORTANT:

It is the duty of the court to apply the penalty provided for by the law. The courts should not
question the wisdom, efficacy, and morality of the law.

It is the province of the legislature. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret them.

Even if the judge does not believe on death penalty, he should impose such penalty if that is what
the law prescribes.

Judge has the duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Dura lex sed lex.

Can the judge impose the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua evidence presented in court
merits the imposition of death penalty?

After finding that an accused individual in a criminal case has, on the occasion of Rape,
committed Homicide, is the judge allowed any discretion in imposing either the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua or Death?

Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of
jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under Republic
Act No. 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide?

Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of
religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they
are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless. A
government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting
under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect
and enforce it without fear or favor,"4 resist encroachments by governments, political parties, 5 or
even the interference of their own personal beliefs.
(THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs. HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region, Branch 47, Manila, HENRY LAGARTO y PETILLA and ERNESTO
CORDERO, respondents G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995)