Art. 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx When a person commits a felony with malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious act.
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one’s illegal acts, merely because one does not intend to produce such consequences. [US v. Brobst (1909)]
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).
Requisites:
(1) An intentional felony has been committed.
(a) The felony committed should be one committed by means of dolo (with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
(i) the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC, (ii) the act is covered by any of
the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
The relation of cause and effect must be shown:
a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause (3) Proximate cause
Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.
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
16 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. [Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957)]
Note: Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reus.
Criminal liability for some felonies arises only upon a specific resulting harm:
Homicide and its qualified forms requires DEATH of the victim to be consummated.
Estafa: requires that the victim incur damage for criminal liability for the consummated felony to arise.
General rule: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
Any person who creates in another person’s mind an immediate sense of danger which causes the latter to do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries. [People v. Page citing People v.
Toling]
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended in the following cases:
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken
for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period)
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal liability. But because of Art.
4, his act is a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (Art.
48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period)
(3) There is only one subject.
(4) The intended subject is a different subject, but the felony is still the same.
(5) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance)
(6) If A’s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim praeter intentionem.
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health.
That death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted; and
That death ensued within a reasonable time. [People v. Datu Baginda]
PROXIMATE CAUSE V. IMMEDIATE CAUSE V. REMOTE CAUSE
Proximate cause – see definition above.
Immediate cause – The last event in a chain of events, though not necessarily the proximate cause of what follows.
Remote cause – A cause that does not necessarily or immediately produce an event or injury.
17 The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
(1) There is an efficient intervening cause or an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease. [People v. Illustre]
(2) The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor’s orders, because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by the accused.
[People v. Almonte]
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim and (b) the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. [People v.
Buhay and People v. Valdez]
(4) Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person. [U.S. v. Marasigan]
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in an outlying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. [People v. Moldes]
Omission – It is inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.
Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
(2) Art. 125: Failure to deliver prisoners.
(3) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
(4) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses.
(5) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
(6) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim.
(7) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor
Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia Facti Excusat) – It is a reasonable misapprehension of fact on the part of the person causing injury to another.
Such person is NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal intent.
Under this principle, what is involved is the lack of intent on the part of the accused. Therefore, the defense of mistake of fact is an untenable defense in culpable felonies, where there is no intent to consider.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act.
Requisites:
(1) That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
(2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
(3) That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.[ People v. Oanis (1993)]
18
However, mistake of fact is NOT availing in People v. Oanis (74 Phil. 257), because the police officers were at fault when they shot the escaped convict who was sleeping, without first ascertaining his identity. (It is only when the fugitive is determined to fight the officers of law trying to catch him that killing the former would be justified) US v. Ah Chong (1910):
A cook who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for homicide.
CULPA
Culpa – The act or omission is not malicious;
the injury caused being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
The element of criminal intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Requisites:
(1) Freedom (2) Intelligence
(3) Negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro (2010):
Reckless Imprudence is a single crime, its consequences on persons and property are material only to determine the penalty.
Quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime, separately defined and penalized under the framework of our penal laws. As early as the middle of the last century, the Court already sought to bring clarity to this field by rejecting in Quizon v.
Justice of the Peace of Pampanga the proposition that "reckless imprudence is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing it.
It is not a mere question of classification or terminology. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible.
The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions.
Negligence - Indicates deficiency of perception, failure to pay proper attention, and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused. Usually involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence - Indicates deficiency of action, failure to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property.
Usually involves lack of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence or imprudence: A man must use his common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts;
it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent.