Criminal Law – branch of division of law which defines crimes, treats
of their nature and provides for their punishment
Crime – act committed or omitted in violation of the law
2 injuries are committed:
1.) Injury committed against a person
- civil indemnity is awarded to the offended party on the heirs
- personal injury against the private offended party 2.) Injury committed against the state
- Punishment is imprisonment
- Social injury against the state for the disturbance of peace
Note: for every crime committed, it is more of an offense against the state rather than against the private offended party.
Example:
A hit B. B sustained a fatal wound but he survived. Thereafter, B filed frustrated homicide. The fiscal found probable cause. In the information filed by the fiscal, the title is People of the Philippines vs A.
The trial continued and the judge found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
>The first penalty of the judge is imprisonment due to social injury. Aside from this, B will pay a civil indemnity.
(Terms)Crime may be a:
1. FELONY – act/omissions punished by the Revised Penal Code
2. OFFENSE – punished by a special law
3. ACTS/INFRACTIONS – punished by ordinances, local legislation
Note that all three are under the umbrella term of Crime.
Legislative Department – power to enact penal laws
In case of emergency, president may issue a Penal Issuance Order provided that there is a law granting it to the president.
Q: Is the power of Congress absolute? A: No, there are limitations.
Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:
1.) Penal law must be general in application otherwise it would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause 2.) Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law 3.) Not a Bill of Attainder
4.) Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments
(e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death. This is unusual punishment so it is prohibited.)
Characteristics of Penal Laws:
1. Generality
- Persons to whom criminal law shall apply 2. Territoriality
- Place where penal law shall be applied 3. Prospectivity
- Time when it shall apply 1.) GENERALITY
- Penal laws shall be applied to all persons on being within the Philippine territory whether they are Filipino Citizens or foreigners regardless of any of their personal circumstances
- Applicable to all so long as within the Philippines - Applies to non-citizens since while they are within the
Philippines, they are given protection in the same way that the government protects its own citizen
Exceptions to the GENERALITY characteristic:
a.) Generally Accepted Principles of PIL
- Heads of state, chief of state and other diplomatic heads such as ambassadors and public ministers are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the country where they are assigned. Since they are immune, they cannot be arrested, prosecuted or punished. (Diplomatic Immunity from Suit)
*consuls – not among those who enjoy the diplomatic immunity from suit
Generally, consuls are subject to penal laws of the country where they are assigned.
XPN: When there is a treaty or an agreement between the home country of the consul and the country where he is designated stating that the consul is immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country
Example: A is an employee in ADB, a foreigner economist. A Filipino filed an oral defamation against the foreigner economist. The DFA issued a letter and protocol to the court which states that ADB and PH has an agreement that the ADB economist is immune from suit. The SC held that it was erroneous that there was a decision immediately to dismiss the case without adducing any evidence, without informing the fiscal. SC ruled that diplomatic immunity is only applied in the exercise of one’s function, but in this defamation case, it immunity will not lie. Evidence first must be gathered to determine if the act was done in the exercise of one’s functions.
b.) Laws of Preferential Application
- Laws which exempt certain individuals from criminal prosecution
e.g. members of Congress are immune from libel, slander and defamation for every speech made in the House of Congress during a regular or special session 2.) TERRITORIALITY
- Penal laws shall be applicable only within the Philippine jurisdiction including its atmosphere, internal waters, etc.
GR: Crimes committed outside the Philippine jurisdiction cannot be under Philippine courts XPN: Art. 2 (RPC)
- Penal laws shall only be applied from the time of effectivity.
- Penal laws cannot be given retroactive application GR: Penal laws shall apply prospectively
XPN: Art. 22 (RPC)
-penal laws may be given the retroactive effect if favorable to the accused provided that the accused is not a habitual criminal
2 Philosophies under the Criminal Law System:
1.) CLASSICAL/JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
1.1. Basis of criminal activity is human free will
- Man is a moral creature which understands right from wrong
- When he commits a wrong, he voluntarily does the same, therefore, he shall be ready for the consequences of his acts
1.2. Purpose of penalty is retribution
- Evolves from the maxim “an eye for an eye..” therefore, for every crime committed, there is a corresponding penalty based on the injury inflicted on the victim
1.3. Determination of penalty is done mechanically - Done mechanically since the punishment is
proportionate to the severity sustained by the victim 1.4. Emphasis is on the crime and not on the criminal - …on the offense and not on the offender 2.) POSITIVIST/REALISTIC PHILOSOPHY
2.1. Basis of criminal liability is man’s social environment “All men are born good, they only become evil due to the influence of the community.”
- Crimes are a social phenomenon
2.2. Purpose of penalty is for purposes of rehabilitation - Offenderis a socially sick individual who need to be corrected not to be punished
2.3. Determination of penalty is done on the case to case
basis
2.4. Emphasis of the law is on the offender and not to the
offense
- …..on the criminal not on the crime
- great regard to the human element of the crime
- takes into consideration why the offender committed the crime
3.) MIXED/ECCLECTIC PHILOSOPHY
- Crimes which are heinous/obnoxious in nature- classical
- Crimes which are social/economic – positivist RPC – Classical philosophy
- Merely copied from Spanish...French espoused classical
- Although RPC is molded with classical philosophy, the amendments are geared toward the positivist philosophy
e.g.
a.) INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW – once served the minimum of his penalty, eligible for parole (rehabilitation)
b.) PROBATION LAW – 6 years and below, probation report to probation officer
c.) RA 9346 –abolished death penalty
THEORIES/RULES CONCERNING CRIMINAL LAW:
1.) UTILITARIAN THEORY/PROTECTIVE
Magno v. CA
- Purpose of punishment is to protect the society from actual/potential wrong doing
- Even in violation of special penal laws, wherein intent does not matter, courts should see to it that punishment shall only be imposed to actual/potential wrongdoers.
- Potential wrongdoer was not Magno rather it was Mrs. Heng. She should not have deposited the check upon withdrawing the machineries. She was the one who acted in bad faith.
SC: If Magno will be the one to be punished, then it will bring about opportunism.
Magno was acquitted on the ground of good faith. 2.) DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
- Penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly against the state. 3.) LENITY RULE
- Whenever a penal law or a provision of penal law is susceptible of 2 interpretations, the one lenient to the accused which will bring about acquittal and the other one strictly against the accused which will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail.
Maxim: In case of doubt, rule always for the accused. Constitution: Unless proven guilty, deemed innocent.
“Guilt must be proven.” 4.) EQUIPOSE RULE
- Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scales of justice shall be titled towards the accused.
reason:
1. Presumption of innocence
2. Prosecution has the burden of proving conviction beyond reasonable doubt
Conviction based on the strength of the evidence of the accused. Q: What if what has performed was a perverted/immoral act but there is no law which punishes the said act. Can the person be prosecuted in court?
A: No, “nullem crimen nulla poena sine lege” there is no crime when there is no law which punishes it.
Q: Are there common law crimes in the Philippines?
A: Common law crimes are principles, usages and use of action which the community considers as condemnable even if there’s no law that punishes it.
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines since the Philippines is a civil law country. Penal laws are enacted. They do not evolve through time.
Art. 1. This Code shall take effect on January 1, 1932. ARTICLE 1
RPC took effect on January 1, 1932 passed into law on December 8, 1930.
Article 2.Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Art. 2 of the RPC has 2 scopes of application – 1. intraterritorial application
- provides that the RPC shall enforced within the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone
2. extraterritorial application
‘Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application’What does this phrase means?
>This phrase means treaties entered with other countries, laws of preferential palliation takes preference over the provision of the RPC. Therefore, if there is any conflict between any agreement entered into by the Philippines with another country, if it is in conflict with any provisions of the RPC, the said agreement shall prevail over the provision of RPC.
Remember the Larranaga case, based on the RPC, a person who is convicted of a crime shall serve his sentence in the New Bilibid prison, that is the national penitentiary. However, the Philippines entered into an agreement with Spain. This agreement was ratified by the Senate. As a result thereof, after Larranaga has been convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and homicide, considering that he has 2 citizenship – both Filipino and Spanish. He was brought to Spain, and there he is serving his sentence. Because based on that agreement, Spanish citizens who
are serving their sentence in the Philippines can be brought to Spain and they are to serve their sentence there. Larranaga took advantage because definitely, the facilities perhaps are better than prison facilities here.
Extraterritorial Application:
1st: Those who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.
When is it a Philippine ship or airship?
>If it’s registered in the Philippines and under the Philippine laws. Even if totally or wholly owned by a Filipino citizen, if it is not registered in the Philippines it cannot be considered as a Philippine ship/airship. It is only upon registration that this aircraft/vessel can fly the Philippine flag. Therefore, it is registration which is the operative act which makes it a Philippine ship/airship.
Now the law says, when a crime is committed on board a Philippine ship/airship. The extraterritorial application of the RPC will apply. It means even if the crime is committed in another place outside the Philippine jurisdiction, still, the RPC will apply. So what is this situation?
>This is a situation where a crime is committed on board a Philippine vessel (pv) while it is outside Philippine territory but not in the territory of another country. The pv is on waters of the Philippines, a crime was committed on board.
What country will have jurisdiction? >Obviously, the Philippines.
What if that pv is on the high seas or international waters and a crime was committed on board the said pv. What country will have jurisdiction over the said crime?
>Still the Philippines. Because of the extraterritorial application of the RPC.it is the situation referred to as the 1st circumstance under paragraph 2 of Art. 2. It is the situation where the Philippine ship is outside the Philippine territory but not in the territory of another country.
What if the pv is on the waters on Malaysia and a crime was committed on board. What country will have jurisdiction?
>Malaysian courts will have the jurisdiction because of the territoriality characteristic of criminal law.
Any exception?
>If the vessel is a Philippine war vessel or warship. Or it is a Philippine warplane because a Philippine warship or war aircraft is considered an extension of the Philippine sovereignty. Therefore, wherever they may be, when a crime is committed on board a Philippine war vessel or warplane, the Philippines will always have jurisdiction and the reason is the 1st paragraph of Art. 2 of the RPC – that is the intraterritorial application of the RPC because it is as the crime is committed within the Philippine territory.
In so far as foreign merchant vessel is concerned. There are 2 rules:
French Rule – crimes committed on board while the foreign vessel
is on the water of another country is within the jurisdiction of the flag country. That is the country where the country is registered. EXCEPT when the crime committed affects the public order, the peace and security of the host country, then the host country will have jurisdiction over the said crime. Therefore, the French Rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the country where the vessel is registered.
French Rule = flag country
English Rule – when a crime is committed on board a foreign
merchant vessel while on the waters of another country it is the host country which will have jurisdiction over the said crime. EXCEPT when the crime merely affects the internal management of the vessel, then it is the flag country which will have jurisdiction. In effect, the English Rule is territorial in nature. Philippines adhere to the English Rule which is strictly territorial in nature.
Ex. A foreign merchant vessel is on Manila Bay. A crime was committed on board, the Philippines will have jurisdiction over the said crime and criminal because we follow the English Rule.
2nd: Those who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands.
3rd: Those who should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number.
Ex. So X was in Japan. He counterfeited Philippine coins. He then introduced these coins in to the Philippine Islands. Although the crime has been committed in Japan, he can be held liable before Philippine courts. This is necessary in order to maintain and preserve the financial circulation and financial stability of the Philippines. Otherwise, no other country would be interested in prosecuting him except the Philippines because it is only the Philippines will be affected by the said counterfeiting of coins.
4th: Those who while being public officers or employees should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
This refers to public officers or employees who are working in another country. While they are working in another country, they committed a crime. If the crime committed by this public officers or employees are in connection with the exercise of their functions. They can be prosecuted before Philippine courts. But if the crime they committed is in no way connected with the exercise of their functions, then they should be prosecuted in the courts of the country where they are assigned.
Ex.
OFW who lost his passport, he went to the Philippine Embassy in Japan applying for a new passport. He has been going there back and forth that it has not it was not yet approved or it was not yet released. On his way out, he saw the approving authority (AA). He talked to AA requesting and begging him that it be immediately approved and released. He was invited to a coffee shop, while having coffee, AA asked $500 from him and promised on that same afternoon, his passport would be released. So the poor OFW gave AA the $500. Where may this AA be prosecuted? Before Philippine courts or before the courts of Japan?
>AA may be prosecuted before the Philippine courts. He did not commit in effect a crime in approving the said passport because it his obligation to approve the said passport. However, he would not perform his obligation without a bribe. He would not perform his function without the money given by the said OFW. So in effect, he committed bribery in its 2nd form – he performs an act not
constituting a crime in connection with the exercise of his function in consideration of the bribe money. So here, he committed bribery, he can be prosecuted before Philippine courts. His act is in connection with the exercise of his functions.
What if instead of the AA, here comes a Filipino filing clerk (FC) inside the Philippine Embassy. The FC followed the OFW, the FC told him that he can facilitate the release of his passport if he will him $50. Desperate, the OFW gave him the money. However, that afternoon,the passport was still not released. He wanted to file a case against the FC.Where can he file a case? Before courts of Japan or Philippines?
>It should be filed before the courts of Japan because the act performed by FC has nothing to do with the exercise of his official functions. In effect, what he has committed is estafa because he made this OFW believe that he has the authority to facilitate the release of the said passport but he did not have such qualification. He committed estafa under Art.315(2)(a). Therefore, he should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan.
What if there is this Philippine consul (PC). The PC told his secretary (S) to work overtime. So S followed PC. In the evening, PC gave coffee to S. Unknown to S, there was something mixed in the coffee to make her unconscious. So after drinking the coffee, she became unconscious and she was raped by PC. S now wanted to file a case against PC. Where may she file the case?
>The act of rape committed has nothing to do with the exercise of PC’s functions. Therefore, it should be filed before the courts of Japan. However, it was committed inside the Philippine Embassy. The Philippine Embassy which is considered an extension of the Philippine sovereignty, then it is as if the crime was committed within the Philippine territory. Therefore, S should file the case before the Philippine courts because it is as if the crime was committed within the Philippine archipelago. The reason for this is the intraterritorial application of the RPC. But if the rape was committed at any other place outside the Philippine Embassy, then PC should be prosecuted before the courts of Japan because rape is in no way connected with the exercise of his functions and a consul does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.
5th: Those who should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Crimes against national security – treason, conspiracy/proposal to
commit treason, misprision of treason, espionage, enticing to war, etc…If any of this crime is committed, even if it is done outside the Philippine archipelago the offender can be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
Reason: extraterritorial application of the RPC.
Likewise, if the crime committed is against the Law of Nations (only 4 crimes – piracy, qualified piracy, mutiny and qualified mutiny) the said offender can also be prosecuted before the Philippine courts.
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be 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.
FELONIES - are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC
When the law says ‘by law’, it means the RPC.
ACTS - refer to any body movement which has a direct connection to
the felony intended to be committed. It is an external act, an overt act in connection with the felony intended to be committed. Therefore, internal acts or mere criminal thoughts will never give rise to a crime.
Ex. A lust for his neighbor. Whenever the neighbor would pass by going to work, A would always look at the neighbor. And for the whole day, he would think of the neighbor with nothing but lust. No matter how criminal his thoughts are it will never give rise to a crime because it is merely an internal unless he performs an external act or an overt act related to acts of lasciviousness or attempted rape or rape. The law requires an act.
OMISSION - is the failure of a person to perform an act or to do a
duty which is required by law
Ex. If a person found, any personal property on the street or on any place and he failed to deliver the same to the owner or to the local authorities. Under Art.308 he becomes liable for theft. Or if a person was driving his vehicle, then he bumped and hit another person. And instead of helping that person, he increased his speed and left. It is a hit-and-run situation. Such fact that he failed to lend help and assistance to that victim will aggravate his criminal liability under Art. 365. So here, for failing to perform an act which is required by law to be done. He commits a felony. So felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
2 kinds of felonies that are may be committed under Art. 3:
1.) Deceit/dolo/intentional felony – when the act is done with deliberate intent
Elements:
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender
2. Freedom of action in doing the act on the part of the offender
3. Intelligence of the offender
An intentional felony is a voluntary act because it is committed by means of deliberate intent.
2.) Fault/culpa/culpable felony– when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill
Elements:
1. Criminal negligence 2. Freedom of action 3. Intelligence
Under Art. 365, a culpable felony is defined as one wherein the offender, although without malice or deliberate intent caused an injury to another by the means of negligence or imprudence. Therefore, even a culpable felony is a voluntary act.
In so far as criminal law is concerned, voluntariness is actually the concurrence of the 3 elements of intentional felony and the concurrence of the 3 elements of culpable felony. In other words, in so far as voluntariness of intentional felony is concerned, it is the concurrence of criminal intent, freedom of action and intelligence.
*Therefore, without voluntariness, there can neither be an intentional felony nor a culpable felony.
A common element of both intentional and culpable felony is
freedom of action – there is freedom of action when the offender
performs the act on his own free will, without force, duress, uncontrollable fear. So note if the offender performs the criminal act but he did the act because there was this compulsion and irresistible fear or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear. There is no criminal liability. They are exempting circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC because there is no freedom of action, an element of voluntariness. There is neither an intentional felony nor culpable felony because there is wanting of freedom of action, an element of voluntariness.
On the other hand, intelligence is also a common element of intentional and culpable felony. Intelligence is the mental capacity of a person to know wrong from right and to appreciate the consequences of one’s act. If the person acted without intelligence, there is no criminal liability. So if the criminal act has been committed by an insane, an imbecile or a minor, the said offender is said to be exempted from criminal liability. Under Art. 12, they are exempting circumstances, he is free of both intentional and culpable felony because he acted without intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
What is intent?
>INTENT is the use of a particular means to achieve the desired result. You cannot see intent. It is an internal state of the mind. So how is intent determined?
>intent is determined by the means employed by the offender in committing the act or by the overt acts of a person constituting the commission of the crime.
Ex. The use of a lethal weapon would show intent to kill on the part of the offender although death did not arise. Taking the personal property of another without the consent of the owner would show intent to gain on the part of the offender.
2 kinds of intent:
1. General Criminal Intent (GCI) 2. Specific Criminal Intent (SCI)
GCI is presumed by law by the mere doing of an act. Therefore, the prosecution does not have the burden to prove it.
SCI is just like an element, an ingredient of the commission of the crime. Therefore, it must be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Ex. Intent to kill must be proven in frustrated/attempted homicide. A and B were fighting. A was losing and so A shot B. B was hit on the left arm. He was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, after B’s release from the hospital, he filed a case against A for attempted homicide. Since the case filed is attempted homicide. The prosecution has the burden of proving intent to kill on the part of A when he shot B and hit him on the left arm. Otherwise, if the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on the part of A. Then A can only be convicted of serious/less serious/slight physical injuries
depending on the date required for medical intervention or he should be acquitted of the crime. Intent to kill must be proven. But what if in the course of their fight, A was losing and so A took out his pistol and he shot B. B was shot on the heart, a fatal wound, a mortal wound was sustained because it was a vital organ which was hit. A immediately bought B to the hospital. However, upon arrival, he was pronounced dead. Therefore, the heirs of B filed a case for homicide against A. A’s defense, I have no intention to kill B. According to him, he only intended to threaten B because they were fighting. Will this defense lie?
>A’s defense that he has not intent to kill B will not lie. The reason is since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a GCI which is presumed by law. Prosecution need not prove intent to kill in homicide, parricide, murder, infanticide (HPMI) because the victim died. It is only in the attempted and frustrated stages of the HPMI wherein intent to kill is considered an element.
Why is it only in the consummated stage of HPMI that intent to kill is presumed?
>Because the best evidence to prove intent to kill is that the victim died. So it is presumed by law.
MOTIVE – the moving power which impels a person to do an act to
achieve the desired result
As a rule, motive is not material in determining the criminal liability of the offender is identified, admits to the commission to the crime, if the prosecution has direct evidence or eyewitness to the commission of the crime, if crime committed is a culpable felony, crime committed is not a special penal law.
XPNs: intent becomes material in determining the criminal liability of the offender –
1. When the act of the offender would result to variant crimes (to know what crime should be charged)
Ex. City mayor (CM) was jogging near the seashore. Here comes X who went to CM and him. CM was not in the performance of his official duty when he was shot. Therefore, the act of X in killing and shooting CM may result to variant crimes depending on the motive, depending on the reason of X of killing. If the reason is a personal grudge/vendetta, murder is committed. But if the reason is because of CM’s past performance of his duty, then the crime committed is direct assault with homicide.
2. When the identity of the offender is doubtful
Ex. There are so many suspects, A, B, C, D and E. There’s doubt as to who among the committed the crime. Then motive will become material in determining the criminal liability of the offender.
3. When the prosecution only has circumstantial evidence to
prove the commission of the crime
Ex. Who was the last person seen together with the victim before he was killed? Why was he with the victim at that time? What could be the motive behind the kill? All of these must be taken into consideration because there was no eyewitness, no direct evidence in the commission of the crime.
*Motive alone, however strong, will never bring about conviction. But motive + circumstantial evidence, motive + supporting evidence = conviction.
How is intent established? How is motive established?
Ex. A was walking. Then here comes B with a lead pipe and hit the head of A with it. B hit it hard and thereafter ran away. A went to the hospital, however, based on the medical certificate no injury whatsoever was sustained by the head of A. So there was no injury. Nevertheless, A filed a case for attempted homicide against B. Therefore, intent to kill is incumbent to be proven by the prosecution because the case filed is attempted homicide. Will B be held liable for attempted homicide? Was there intent to kill? >There was no intent to kill. Intent to kill is determined by the following factors:
1. The nature and number of the weapon used by the offender in the commission of the crime
2. The nature, number and location of wounds inflicted/sustained by the victim
3. The manner of committing the crime
4. The acts, deeds or words stated by the offender before, during or immediately after the commission of the crime
5. Proof of the victim (?) Let us apply this in the case –
B hit A with a lead pipe. Was there motive? >In the problem, there was no motive. Nature and number of weapon used? >B used a lead pipe.
Nature, number and location of wound inflicted on the victim? >The victim did not sustain any wound despite the fact that it was hit with a lead pipe.
Manner of committing the crime.
>After hitting A once, B ran away. If he had intended to kill the victim, he would have hit A several times.
Act, deeds and words made by the offender before, during or after the commission of the crime.
>He just saw the victim, hit the victim thereafter ran away. All of these would show there was no intent to kill on the part of said offender.
Therefore, B should not be convicted of attempted homicide.
People v. Mapalo
SC convicted him only of ill treatment of another by deed, a form of slight physical injury. Ill treatment of another by deed is the circumstance wherein a person was hit or there was injury caused to the person but there was no (?may umubo sa class at nasapawan boses ni Ma’am o.O) On the other hand, how is motive proved? >Motive is proved by the testimony of the witnesses as to the acts or statements made by the accused before or immediately after the commission of the crime. Ex. Before the killing of A, a witness saw B threatening to kill A. Therefore, B would have the motive because of his acts prior to the commission of the crime. Or right after the killing of A, a witness saw B running away from the scene of the crime laughing saying “finally, I have my revenge” there is the motive. So here motive is established by the acts or statements made by the accused prior to or after the commission of the crime.
NOT DURING because in motive, there is no direct evidence. The witness did not see how the crime was committed.
INTENT MOTIVE
use of a particular means to achieve a desired result
moving power which impels a person to do a specific act to achieve the desired result, therefore it is the reason behind intent a material element in
determining the criminal liability of the accused
immaterial to determine the criminal liability of the offender
established/proven by the overt act of the offender or by the means employed
established by the acts/statements made by the accused prior to or immediately after the commission of the crime
What negates criminal intent? What may be a defense against criminal intent?
>it is mistake of fact.
MISTAKE OF FACT (mof) – is the misapprehension of facts on the
person who caused injury to another
If a person acted under mof, he is absolved of criminal liability because he acted without criminal intent. That is, had the facts been as he believed them to be, his act done would have been lawful and justifiable.
Before one may be absolved of criminal liability for having acted under mof, the following are elements:
1. That the act done would have been lawful and justifiable had
the facts been as the accused believed them to be
-had it been as he believed, the act performed would’ve amounted to a justifying or exempting circumstance 2. That the intention of the accused in doing the act must be
lawful
-he must be ignited by a noble or lawful or justifiable intent
3. That the mistake must be without fault, negligence, careless
on the part of the offender
-the offender cannot be negligent in ascertaining the true facts of the case and at the same time invoke mof *mof although a defense in intentional felony cannot be a defense in culpable felony
Ex. US v. Ah Chong
Ah Chong was acquitted because he acted under mistake of fact. [M’Garcia: BUT that was because the case was decided a long time ago. If the case is decided now, I doubt if there will be an acquittal. Let’s go by the elements: 2nd and 3rd elements are present.
However, the 1st element is wanting - that the act done would have
been lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the accused believed them to be - the victim was only trying to enter. Will that
act already constitute unlawful aggression?
>No. There is no unlawful aggression because there was no imminent or immediate danger on the life and property of the said offender. 1st element is wanting.]
The police officers A, B and C were dining in a restaurant when they noticed a group of men who are so noisy. And so A looked at them and noticed that one of them, X had a gun tucked on his waist. So A went on the back of X and told him “I can see that you have a gun tucked on your waist. Do you have a license? I’m a police officer.” X said “Yes sir, I have a license.” And A said “Show me your license.” So X stood up and he tried to get his wallet from his pocket in order to show his license as requested by A. As he was picking his wallet, he was turning around to look at A. The moment he faced A, A shot him. X died. Prosecuted for homicide, A said he acted under mof. He thought, what X was picking was his gun and that he would be shot by X. Therefore, in self-defense he shot X first. Will his defense of mof lie in his favor?
>1st element: wanting. Granting for argument that what X was picking was the gun, will it constitute unlawful aggression such that self-defense would lie? NO. because the gun was not yet pointed at A, it will not yet bring an immediate danger on the life
2nd element: present. Let’s say that A has the good intention. 3rd element: wanting. A was negligent, there was fault or carelessness on his part in ascertaining the true facts of the case. He was asking for the license and X said he has one. Definitely, what would be shown to him would be the license not the gun.
Therefore, since 2 elements are absent, A cannot invoke mof and he should be convicted for homicide for killing X.
Can a crime be committed without criminal intent? >Yes. There are 2 instances.
1. Culpable Felony
2. When the crime is in violation of special penal laws
ACTS MALA PROHIBITA
- Acts which are only wrong because there is a law that prohibits and penalizes it
- Not inherently wrong
e.g. illegal possession of unlicensed firearms
ACTS MALA IN SE
- Acts which are inherently evil or wrong - Wrong per se, even if there’s not law, it is evil
e.g. killing another, taking the thing of another
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
Inherently evil, wrong per se
Not inherently evil or wrong
Criminal liability is based on the intent or morality of the offender
Criminal liability is based on the mere doing of the prohibited act
Good faith/lack of criminal intent is a valid defense
Good faith/lack of criminal intent is not a valid defenses
Modifying circumstances such as mitigating and aggravating are considered by the court in the imposition of penalty
Modifying circumstances are not considered in the imposition of penalty UNLESS otherwise provided by the special penal law
Degree of the participation of the offender (principal, accomplice or accessory) is considered in the imposition of the penalty
Degree of participation by the offender not considered all perpetrators of the act are punished equally
Stage (attempted, frustrated or consummated) is taken into consideration in the imposition of penalty
The only stage considered is the consummated stage. No attempted or frustrated stage.
**Not all acts punishable by special penal laws are mala prohibita!! There are some special penal laws which punish acts mala in se.
e.g. plunder is a special penal law yet the SC said plunder is malum in se. criminal intent matters.
Garcia v. CA
Garcia was the head of the board of canvassers. The number of votes of Sen. Pimentel was decreased. In decreasing the number of votes, the said votes were not added to any candidate. So it did not favor any candidate. So according to him, he acted in good faith, no criminal intent. But according to the other side, it is a special penal law, therefore they should be held criminally liable. What did the SC say?
>The act of decreasing or increasing a candidate’s vote although punished by special penal law is a malum in se. it is inherently evil or wrong.
What about in this case, it is a malum in se. And Garcia and company said, they acted in good faith, they were already so tired, because of the counting. So how come they were still convicted?
>According to the SC: They should exercise extraordinary diligence in the counting of the votes. Hence, they are still held criminally liable. The defense of good faith would not lie in their favor as board of canvassers.
Can an act mala in se absorb an act mala prohibita? And vice versa? > Lonely v. People
Lonely and company, the head of marcopper company were charged 4 cases – violation of the water code of the Philippines, violation of the Philippine mining act, violation of national pollution control degree – all three are acts mala prohibita and one act malum in se – that is violation of Art.365 reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property. Their contention was that the 3 other informations involving violation of spl should already be quashed because they are absorb by Art. 365. Anyway, the incident resulted from the same act of polluting. What did the SC say?
>SC: Acts mala in se cannot absorb acts mala prohibita. What makes an act malum in se is the presence of intent, deceit or dolo or fault or culpa. On the other hand, what makes an act malum prohibitum is the fact that it’s in violation of a special penal law. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. So they have to be prosecuted on all 4 cases.
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and bumped B. X was charged with murder. So the information charges an intentional felony of murder. Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution presented evidence, the defense presented evidence. The defense was able to show, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
reason for the said act of killing B was because X lost control of his brake. Therefore, according to them, there was only imprudence and so X should only be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The judge believed the defense. So in an information for an intentional felony of murder, the said court convicted X only of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, a culpable felony. Is the judge correct? Can the judge convict a person of a culpable felony in an information that charges him of intentional felony? >Yes. The reason is that a culpable felony is necessarily included in an intentional felony because a culpable felony is of lesser offense than that of intentional felony.
*A malum prohibitum is not necessarily included in malum in se. Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. But a culpable felony by an intentional felony.
Art. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Proximate Cause Doctrine (PCD)
By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Elements (Garcia)
1. The intended act is a felonious act 2. The resulting act is a felony
3. The resulting act is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of the offender
Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is necessary that the offender is performing a felonious act and since he is performing a felonious act, he becomes liable for all the resulting crime although different from that which he intended. Provided that the resulting felony is the direct, natural and logical consequence of his felonious act. Otherwise stated, his felonious act must be the proximate cause of the resulting felony.
For one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is not necessary that the offender should have even touch the body of the victim. It suffices that the felonious act performed by the offender has generated in the mind of the victim, fear for his life. By reason of that fear for his life the victim performed acts, made risk that injured himself. The accused will become criminally liable.
PROXIMATE CAUSE (PC) - the cause that sets in to motion all other causes and which unbroken by efficient intervening cause produces the felony without which the felony would have not been committed. Therefore, for one to be criminally liable under the PCD, it is necessary that the felonious act and the resulting felony must not be broken by any efficient intervening cause. No efficient or supervening intervening cause must have broken the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender and the resulting felony.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE (EIC) - an active force which is a distinct act absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. Therefore, in order that an act is considered an EIC, it is necessary
that it is totally foreign from the felonious act that is performed by the offender.
PC is not always the immediate cause. At times it may be a remote cause.
Ex. A was driving his car along SLEX followed by B, by C, by D, by E. When A reached the tollgate, he stopped to pay the toll, so B stopped as well as C and D. E however was very sleepy, he did not put to stop so he hit D, D hit C, C hit B, B hit A. Because of the impact the car of A sustained serious damage.
Q: What is the PC of the damage sustained by the car of A?
> the PC was E because it was the car of E which sets into motion all other cars to bump each other. It was not the immediate cause because the immediate cause was the car of B because it is the car of B which hit the car of A. So a PC is not always the immediate cause, at times it may be the remote cause.
Ex. A bus was going to Quezon, suddenly 4 men boarded a bus, 2 mean seated at front seats and the other 2 seated at back. While they were traversing a zigzag portion on the road, the 4 men stood up and announced a hold up. One passenger was so afraid of holduper as he has a previous experience of holdupers. He was so afraid that he opened a window and he jumped out of a window, he fell on a cliff and he died.
Q: Are the holdupers liable for the death of the passenger? > Yes. The holdupers in announcing a holdup are committing a felonious act. The resulting act was a felony, the resulting felony was the direct, natural and logical consequence of the feloniuos act of the offenders. Were it not for the holdupers announcing a hold up, there would be no fear on the mind of the passenger. But because of the announcement, there was fear on the mind of passenger and by reason of that fear, he made risk that caused his death. The holdupers are liable for robbery with homicide because they are liable for the death of the passenger.
Ex. X was having a siesta on the terrace of their house on a rocking chair. Suddenly he was awakened by the noise of the children. He found out that it was coming from the backyard of their house, saw 4 boys harvesting his mango tree. So he told the boys to come down the tree, otherwise, he will be calling the police and let them be arrested. The boys hurriedly went down the tree. One boy from the top most portion of the tree jumped down and his head hit a big stone. He suffered hemorrhage, thereafter he died.
Q: Is X criminally liable for the death of the boy?
First element, the intended act is a felonious act. He was not committing a felonious act. He was just acting his right when he said he will call the police considering that the boys were taking his mangoes, they were committing theft. Therefore, he was just acting within his right. Since X was not committing a felonious act, he cannot be held criminally liable for the resulting felony.
So if you are given a problem, the first thing you should do is to determine if the person is committing a felonious act. If not, a person cannot be held liable for the resulting felony. If he is, then he is liable for the resulting felony.
In the same case, X told the boys, if you will not come down I have here my shotgun, I will shoot each one of you and he fired shots in the air. The boys were so afraid and hurriedly went down, one of
them jumped, fell and suffered serious physical injuries because of his broken legs.
Is X criminally liable for the injuries sustained by the boy?
> Yes. Because this time he was committing a felonious act. He was threatening to shoot the children. It is a felonious act amounting to grave threats. Therefore, this time he is criminally liable for the resulting felony although different from that which he intended. For one to be criminally liable under the PCD it is necessary that there is no efficient intervening cause that has broken the chain between the felonious act and the resulting felony.
Urbano vs. IAC
A case cited in People vs. Villacorta
Urbano and Villacorta were both not convicted of homicide. The 2 cases have almost similar facts.
People vs. Villacorta
January 23, 2002, there was a stabbing incident. Cruz was stabbed by Villacorta on the left side of his body with a sharpened bamboo stick. He was brought to the Tondo Medical Center. He was released on the very same day as out patient because his wound was not fatal. February 14, 2002 he was brought to San Lazaro Hospital. He was already suffering from tetanus infection. A day after February 15 he died. The cause of his death was tetanus infection. Villacorta was prosecuted for the crime of homicide for the death of Cruz. The lower court convicted him.
SC: Citing Urbano case, he cannot be convicted of the crime of homicide. Based on the expert testimony of the doctor, the incubation period of the tetanus virus is within 14 days. In the case, it took the victim 22 days before he died. Therefore the stab wound was without tetanus virus. Cruz may have performed acts which brought about the tetanus virus. The stabbing was only a remote cause and the tetanus infection was the proximate infection which brought about the death of the victim.
So Villacorta was only convicted of slight physical injuries because they were not able to prove intent to kill. First, no evidence of motif. Second nature and number of weapon used. A sharpened bamboo stick, not even a little weapon made of metal. Third, the nature, number and location of wound. It was only on the left side of the body. Fourth, manner of committing the crime. After one stabbing, there was no more. So from homicide, he was only convicted of slight physical injury punished by the lowest penalty arresto menor, 1-30days or fine of not more than P200.
Urbano vs. IAC
Javier was hacked by Urbano on his right palm. Javier suffered an incised wound and brought to the hospital. There was settlement. Thereafter he was released. However, after 22 days he was brought to the hospital, he was already suffering from tetanus poisoning. The next day he died.
SC: same reasoning by the SC. The act committed by Javier after he was released from the hospital, the fishing, going to the farm was considered as the proximate cause that brought about the tetanus virus on his incised wound. Therefore he was not convicted of the crime of homicide but only physical injuries.
So it is necessary that there no EIC that will rate the causal connection between the felonious act of the offender the resulting felony.
Ex. A and B were fighting. A stabbed B. B sustained a less serious physical injuries. B was brought to the hospital, it was not a serious wound, however, because of the negligence or careless treatment of the doctor, this not serious wound became a very serious wound which later on caused the death of B. The relatives of B filed a case of homicide against A.
Is A liable of homicide for the death of B? Or would you consider the careless treatment of the doctor as an EIC?
> A is liable for the death of B. The negligence or careless treatment of the doctor cannot be considered as an EIC. The negligent treatment of the doctor was an active force but it is not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender. Because precisely he needed medical intervention, he needed treatment of the doctor because he sustained a stab wound from A. Therefore, there is a connection between the felonious act and the medical treatment. It there for cannot be considered as an EIC. The doctors negligence would only make him liable administratively but not criminally.
Ex. A and B were friends. After farming while they were having a drinking spree, they had a political discussion, A was pro Pnoy and B was pro GMA. Their agreement heated, B stood up and broke a bottle of beer, stabbed A. A was wounded. They parted ways. A was on his way home when suddenly it rained. After it rained there was lightning and A was hit by lightning. A died. The heirs of A filed a case of homicide against B.
Is B criminally liable for the death of A?
> under the PCD, B is not criminally liable for the death of A because there was an EIC that is the lightning. The lightning was an active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender which was the stabbing of the victim. Therefore he cannot be held liable for the death of A but only physical injuries sustained by the victim.
3 SITUATIONS WHEREIN A PERSON BECOMES CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
1. Abberatio Ictus - mistake in the blow
- situation wherein the offender directed a blow at his intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on another victim. Ex. A saw his enemy B walking on the pedestrian lane. With intent to kill, A pulled out his pistol and shot B. However, he has poor aim, he is not a sharp shooter, so instead of hitting his target B, the bullet landed on C. C died. B was not hit at all.
What are the crimes or crime committed by A?
> in so far as B is concerned, A is liable for attempted murder because he intended to kill B. he already performed an overt act when he fired the gun with intent to kill against B. there was treachery, the victim was totally defenseless. However because of poor aim it was C who died.
> in so far as C is concerned, the crime committed is homicide. Therefore, of what crime will you charge and convict A?
> there are two crimes committed. Against B attempted murder, against C homicide. But since this 2 crimes were brought about by a single act, it will give rise to a complex crime under Art. 48. Under Art. 48 when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, we have compound crime or a complex crime.
The crime committed by A is attempted murder with homicide. This is because it results from the single act of the crime.
Ex. A fired B, but because of poor aim, C was hit. C sustained a fatal wound, a mortal wound. However, C was immediately brought to the hospital and he survived because of immediate medical intervention.
> in so far B is concerned, the crime committed is attempted murder.
In so far as C, what crime is committed? Is it frustrated homicide? > it is not frustrated homicide because in so far as Cis concerned, there was no intent to kill on the part of C but since C suffered a fatal wound but survived, he is liable for serious physical injuries. Therefore the crime committed by A is a complex crime of attempted murder with serious physical injuries. A single act constitutes one grave felony which is attempted murder and one less grave felony which is serious physical injuries.
What if he sustained a less serious wound?
> attempted murder with less serious physical injuries.
What if when C was hit by the bullet, C only sustained a slight physical injury which is a light felony, are you going to complex? > this time you cannot complex because under Art. 48, you can only complex grave and less grave felonies. You cannot complex a light felony. Therefore, there would be 2 cases filed separately. Attempted murder in so far as B is concerned. Slight physical injury in so far as C is concerned. So 2 informations, 2 cases must be filed in the court.
2. Error in Personae - mistake in the identity
- it is a situation wherein the victim actually received the bullet but he was mistaken to be the intended victim. The intended victim was not at the scene of the crime.
Effects: it depends
1. If there is variance between the intended and actual crime committed, mitigating
2. If none, no effect on the criminal liability of the offender
Ex. A and B were fighting A boxed B. It was a strong box that B fell on the ground, his face facing the ground. A left the scene of the crime. At that precise moment when A left, here comes the father of B who saw his poor son boxed by A so he came to the rescue of his son and went near him. To retaliate, B took out his balisong and stabbed the person next to him thinking that it was still his opponent A but in truth it was already his father. Let's say the father died.
What was the intended crime committed by B?
> homicide because he intended to kill A, the person who boxed him.
What crime did he commit?
> parricide because he killed his own father. Of what crime will you prosecute B?
> parricide because that is the that he actually committed.
Let's say that he is now charged of parricide. Trial on the merits proceeded. The Judge found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide. What penalty as a Judge would you impose on him? > the penalty for parricide under Art. 246 is reclusion perpetua to death whereas the penalty for homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal. Although he committed parricide. You have to impose upon him the penalty which is lesser and that is reclusion temporal but in its maximum period.
Under Art. 49, in case of Error in Personae or Mistake in the Identity, when there is a variance between the intended crime and the actual crime committed, you have to compare the 2. Whichever has a lesser penalty, that penalty has to be imposed.
In the case the intended felony is homicide but the actual felony is parricide. Compare the penalty of the 2, although B should be convicted of the crime of parricide, the penalty will be that of the crime with a lesser penalty. That is reclusion temporal for homicide. Ex. In the same problem, instead of the father coming to the rescue of B, it was the friend of B who came to his rescue. So when A left, the friend of B arrived and was the one stabbed by B and died. Therefore, B killed his own best friend.
> the crime committed is homicide What was hi intended crime? > homicide
What crime did he actually commit?
> homicide because he killed his own best friend
What crime would you charge him of? After trial on the merits what penalty will you impose?
> the penalty of homicide. Since there is no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed. In this case, Error in Personae will not mitigate the liability of the offender. Art. 49 will not apply.
3. Prater Intentionem - when the consequence went beyond the intention; injurious result is greater than that intended.
- it is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his actual victim, the victim received the blow. However, the injurious result is far greater than what is intended by the victim.
Effect: it is always a mitigating circumstance because of Art. 13. The offender has o intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
For Praeter Intentionem to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the prime element or requisite is that:
there must be a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony. That is out of the means employed by the offender, no one could have anticipated or foreseen that injurious result.
Ex. H arrived home and asked W what was their dinner and the W answered that she has not yet cooked because she was watching teleserye. Since the H was so tired, he got mad and elbowed the W. The W fell on floor and her head hit the edge of the table and so she suffered hemorrhage. Thereafter, she died.
What crime should H be prosecuted? > parricide
H said he had no intention of killing his W, he only elbowed her. However, since death is the result, it is a general criminal intent which is presumed by law.
Would you give him the benefit of Praeter Intentionem?
> Yes, because no one could have foreseen that the mere act of elbowing the W, death would result. There was a notable disparity between the means employed, the act of elbowing the W, and the resulting felony which is death or parricide. Therefore, he should be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance.
Garcia vs. People
Garcia was convicted for the death of the victim.
SC: His act of mauling him was the proximate cause of his heart attack. However, he was given the benefit of Praeter Intentionem. Who would have anticipated that the mere act of mauling or boxing him death would result. Therefore, there was Praeter Intentionem.
People vs. Noel Sales
Praeter Intentionem was not considered by the court.
The son was hit by a thick piece of a wood while he was tied on a coconut tree. There was a crack on his head, became unconscious and then he died. The father was convicted for parricide. According to him he cannot be held liable for parricide. He claimed that he has no intention to kill the child, he only intended to discipline his children. However, since the victim died, death is considered a general criminal intent which is presumed by law. Therefore, he should be held liable of parricide.
Does the PCD apply?
> Yes. The father in beating the son with a thick piece of wood while the child was tied on a coconut tree was already a felonious act. Therefore the father should be liable for the resulting felony although different from that which he intended.
Should the father be given the benefit of Praeter Intentionem? > No. According to the SC, there was no notable disparity between the act of the father hitting the said son with a thick piece of wood while being tied on a coconut tree and the resulting felony which is death. Considering the age of the child, such act of the father would produce and indeed produce the death of the child. Therefore it cannot b said that there is no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Impossible Crime Doctrine (ICD)
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 an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- one where the act would have amounted to a crime against persons or property but it is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
- it is not really a crime in the legal sense of the word because a crime requires a substantive change in the outside world. Here the act dis not ripen into a crime. It was not accomplished into a crime because of its inherent impossibility. Nevertheless, the offender is being punished because of his criminality and dangerousness. So although objectively, no crime is committed, still the offender shall be punished that is why he is convicted only of IC.
- the penalty of IC is only arresto mayor or a fine of P200-P500 depending on the criminality or dangerousness of the offender.
Elements for a person to be liable of IC
1. That the act done would have been an offense against persons or property
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That the act was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means 4. That the act done should not constitute any other violation of the RPC
1.
Crimes against persons under Title 8, we have parricide, murder, homicide, abortion, infanticide, duel, physical injuries, rape. Crimes against property, we have robbery, brigandage, theft, usurpation or occupation of real property, estafa or swindling, malicious mischief, arson.
Only crimes against persons and property would an IC 2.
It is necessary that the offender in doing the act must be incited by an evil intent.
3. Intod vs. CA
Killing a person when it is already dead. SC: discussed 2 kinds of inherent impossibility
2 KINDS OF INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBILITY
a. Legal Impossibility - there is legal impossibility when all the intended acts even if committed would not have amounted to a crime.
Ex. Intod vs. CA - Killing a person when he is already dead Ex. X saw his enemy Y lying on a bench. He went to Y and stabbed Y 10x not knowing that Y had already long been dead for 2 hrs due to a heart attack. Even if X performed all the acts amounting to murder, still murder would not arise which is a crime against persons because the victim is already deceased. He is no longer a person in the eyes of criminal law. Therefore there is IC and what we have is legal impossibility.
b. Physical and Factual Impossibility - when an extraneous circumstance unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Here, there are circumstances unknown to the offender, the inadequate control of the offender which prevented the consignation of the crime. Example given by SC in the case of Intod vs. CA
A person placed his hands inside the pocket of the polo of another, intended to get the wallet of the said person but the pocket was empty. It is an IC. Extraneous Circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consignation of the crime. Unknown to him the wallet was not inside his pocket. S it is an IC because it would have amounted to theft, a crime against property.
4.
It is necessary that the act done must not be a violation of any crime under the RPC. Otherwise that person would be held liable of that crime and not of an IC. So an impossible crime is a crime of last resort. One should only file a case of IC if the act of the offender does not constitute any other violation of the RPC.
Intod vs. CA
Intod accompanied by other men, wanted to kill Palampangan, peppered the room his room with bullets. However, the intended victim was not there. Only son in law and children were there but they were not hit. Intod and his company were charged with the crime of attempted murder up to the CA.
SC: it was only an IC and what is present is only factual or physical impossibility. Unknown to the offenders the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It could have amounted to a crime against persons which is murder. But it was inherently impossible because the victim was not there.
This decision of the SC were criticized because under the 4th element, the act must not constitute any other violation of the RPC. When this accused peppered the house of Palampangan with bullets, they did peppered the house with bullets. So they said, they should be liable with malicious mischief because damage was done to the house and not IC. SC retained its decision that it is an IC and this case of Intod vs. CA was cited in the case of Jacinto vs. People. Jacinto vs. People
A check which was supposed to be remitted was not remitted by the offender, instead it was deposited. Since the check was not remitted, Megaphone filed a case of qualified theft against he employee. She was convicted before the lower court up to the CA. SC: it was impossible crime citing the case of Intod vs. CA. They acted amounting to qualified theft. However, unknown to the said offender the check was not funded. Therefore, she was not able to get the face value of the said check. Hence, physical circumstances unknown to the offender prevented the consummation of the crime. We have physical or factual impossibility.
What about the fact that the check was taken, was not remitted to Megaphone?
> According to the SC theft has been defined under Art. 308 as the taking of a property with intent to gain the personal property of another. Therefore it is necessary that the property taken must have value because the taking must be with intent to gain. The mere taking of a check without value would not amount to theft because the check without value is a worthless check. Hence, the SC said that the crime committed is only an IC.
The penalty is arresto mayor or a maximum penalty of 6 months. > the SC erased, did not include the 4th element of IC. That the act done should not constitute any other violation of the RPC. Perhaps because of the ruling in Intod vs. CA. It was deliberately deleted.
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 the 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.
There are no common law crimes in the Philippines.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
