Session 1: THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW TO ELEMENTS OF DOLO AND CULPA What are the Theories in Criminal Law?
What are the Characteristics of Criminal Law? Generality.
Here, you refer to persons who commit the crime. Our penal laws shall apply to all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines.
Live? As long as you live here in the Philippines whether permanently or temporarily you are covered. Even if you are a foreigner, our penal laws will apply to you.
Sojourn? No intent to live here. These are transients or travelers who come here for a short period of time. For example, a vessel or an airplane who stops here in the Philippines. Passengers urinate. While urinating, they smoked marijuana. They are covered by our penal laws.
Territoriality
Here, you refer to where the crime was committed. This refers to the situs of the crime. Philippine Archipelago under the Constitution
Do we follow the three nautical mile rule or the twelve nautical mile rule? We follow the twelve nautical mile rule. We measure this during low tide. How do we measure?
You measure the twelve nautical miles from the outermost islands of our Philippine archipelago. You do that with all the outermost islands and place dots all over. Then, you draw a straight line connecting all the dots. Whatever you cover upon connecting all of the dots, that is the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
It is not accurate to say twelve nautical miles from the seashore.
Anything above that area, above and beneath, is included in our jurisdiction. Beyond the twelve nautical mile area, our Philippine laws will not anymore apply. What is the two hundred nautical miles?
There is a provision in the fisheries law. In fact they are using this on Chinese fishermen being caught in the high seas fishing. The violations take place beyond the twelve nautical mile are. Now, supposing there is a group of fishermen fishing beyond the twelve nautical miles area but within the two hundred nautical mile area and they use dynamite, will you apply our Philippine laws? Yes, because it is provided in the fisheries law where we recognize the two hundred nautical mile economic zone. That two hundred nautical mile area is an agreement between peace-loving nations. It was taken from an international agreement among nations. It was established so that they may exploit everything within their exclusive economic zones. If one violates the law on fisheries (referring to exploitation or preservation of our marine resources) even if it is more than twelve nautical miles, then our Philippine laws will apply. But if the crime committed is not related to the exploitation or preservation of our marine resources (like rape) and such crime is committed beyond the twelve nautical mile rule but within the two hundred nautical mile rule, our courts will not have jurisdiction.
Supposing a crime is committed inside a foreign vessel within Philippine territory (like in Manila bay), do we apply our Philippine laws?
First, determine the kind of vessel. Is it a foreign merchant vessel or is it a foreign military (or foreign owned) vessel?
If it is a foreign vessel, determine first what kind. If it is a foreign owned vessel (like warships and battleships), whatever crime committed inside that, we will have no jurisdiction those ships represent the sovereignty of their country.
If it is a foreign merchant vessel, we also have to distinguish. What is the act committed? Even if it is a crime within our laws but if such crime pertains only to the internal management of the vessel, we have no jurisdiction. Example, the captain and the crew member are quarrelling because the crew member is saying that the captain sails like shit. Even if it is considered oral defamation according to our laws, you do not apply Philippine laws. But once they kill each other, Philippine laws will now apply because that do not anymore involve the internal management of the vessel.
Vessel in transitu?
A vessel in transitu is not only passing through our jurisdiction, it is actually a vessel on voyage but with no intention of stopping here in the Philippines because it is destined for a foreign country. Stops in the Philippines for refueling. Example, a vessel from Japan or China stopped in the Philippines. It is loaded with opium. But that ship is not intended to unload in the Philippines. If that ship stops in the Philippines for refueling, even if it is carrying opium, as a general rule, we cannot apply
Philippine law. As long as the cargo is not intended to be unloaded here, we have no jurisdiction. But if it is unloaded in the Philippines, we will have jurisdiction.
General rule: If a crime is committed inside a vessel which is transitu, we cannot apply our laws even if the act committed is punishable under the RPC.
Exception: If the crime involves a crime of public order.
What are crimes against public order? Those are crimes under Articles 201 to 202 and 153, 155. These crimes are those that disturb the peace and tranquility of the community. It also includes crimes which endangers the health of the community. Example, guns smuggled from a foreign country. Vessel is in transitu but is not intended to unload here. It is now within the 12 nautical mile area of the Philippines. Do we apply our Philippine laws? We will not apply our Philippine laws because it is not intended to unload here. If, however, one of the crew members started firing one of the guns within our Philippine territory. Will you apply our Philippine law? Yes, because the act now that is punished is a crime against public order which is alarm and scandal.
Prospectivity
Criminal laws shall apply to the present and the future. No person shall be punished for a crime to which the state provides no penalty. As a general rule, penal laws cannot be applied retroactively.
Exceptions to Generality Look at Article 2.
By international agreement. Reciprocal agreements which benefit both the Philippines and foreign countries. Diplomatic immunity.
Who are those included in diplomatic immunity? Ambassador, plenipotentiaries.
Attaches not included.
US President commits rape here, not liable
Are domestic helpers of diplomats entitled to the exception in generality? Driver of US President? If the driver is driving the vehicle with the President on board, the driver will not be liable. If the President is not inside, driver will be liable. If driver commits rape, driver will be liable because not in connection with the performance of his functions.
The first paragraph of Article 2 refers to the exception to generality (except as provided for in the treaties and laws of preferential application). The next paragraphs of Article 2 refer to the exception to territoriality.
Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. Here, the vessel must be a Philippine registered ship or airship. It should not be merely Philippine owned.
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. An American counterfeits Philippine peso and introduces it to America. Will our Philippine law apply? Yes. But as to whether or not he can be prosecuted, that is a different story because you have to bring him here for arraignment.
Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. Suppose you have an American who counterfeited our money and there is a group of persons using that money to buy. Is the use only limited to the Philippines or even abroad? If the act of uttering takes place here in the Philippines, it will not fall within the exception. The general rule will apply because the crime took place here. The exception will apply if the counterfeit Philippine peso is introduced to a foreign country.
While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions. Case: Somebody is based in America working in an embassy. Philippine citizen, public official. Commits a crime of rape there. Will Philippine law apply? No. His duty does not include raping! The crime must be committed in the performance or in relation to their office. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. What are crimes against security? Treason, etc. What are crimes against the law of nations? Crimes against the law of nations are crimes abhorred by all peace-loving people. It is like a crime against mankind or humanity. Like piracy, or air piracy. If any of the elements is committed in any part of the world, Philippines has jurisdiction. Case: Air pirates hi-jacked a plane in the US. The case was brought here. Do we have jurisdiction? Yes, even if the taking took place in America, we can apply Philippine law.
Exceptions to Prospectivity
When the law is favorable to the accused. Exception to the exception, when habitual delinquent.
Probation law. It is favorable to the accused. Will you apply that law retroactively? No. The retroactive application of the law applies only to penal laws. Probation law is a penal law.
Felix Bernardo vs. Hon. Cecilio. The retroactive application of laws apply only to penal laws favorable to the accused. Because there are some laws which are favorable to the accused but are not penal laws. Penal laws are those that defines crimes and provide for their penalties.
People v. Gonzales. Illegal possession of firearms. The Robin Padilla case. The amendment of the law on illegal possession lowered the penalty but added the imposition of a fine which was not included in the earlier law. Prision correctional and a fine of not more then 30,000 pesos. Do we apply the law retroactively? Is it favorable to the accused? Supreme Court when you appeal the case, you are actually abandoning your case. Therefore, the appellate court can now come with a new decision. That is imprisonment and fine! That is still favorable to the accused so apply retroactive effect.
Distinguish Mala Prohibita and Mala In Se?
In mala prohibita, mere violation of the law makes you liable. Intent is immaterial. In mala in se, intent is material.
If policemen catch you in the possession of dangerous drugs, do you become criminally liable? Not yet. You can still defend yourself by proving lack of animus possidendi or intent to possess.
Supposing somebody was caught in the act of possessing a gun. That guy ran away. Then the culprit threw the gun. You then picked up the gun. Then the policemen caught me. Will I be liable just because I was holding the unlicensed gun? No. Because there was no intent to possess on my part. That is different from intent to commit a crime.
But if you’re smoking marijuana, there is no defense. The fact that you are smoking marijuana means that you are liable. In fact, you are being charged with use.
Article 3.
When do you become criminally liable under the RPC? Even if you’re sleeping, do you become liable?
Omission: When there is something required to be done by law and you fail to commit it. Example: Misprision of Treason. What is punished is the failure to report when you have knowledge of an existing conspiracy. Delay in delivery of persons arrested without a warrant. If police officers fail to deliver, they become liable.
Dolo.
What are the essential elements of dolo?
Intent. The act must be deliberate. It must be with knowledge.
Intelligence. Knowing what is right and what is wrong and you know the consequence of your act. If you do this, you know the consequence. If I commit the crime of rape, I know that I will go to jail. When you have complete intelligence, you are criminally liable. Discernment is different from intelligence. Sometimes, even if you act with discernment, you are not criminally liable. Freedom. The act must be voluntary. The moment the act is not voluntary, exempting circumstance.
What are the elements of culpa?
Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, lack of skill. Intelligence.
Freedom.
How do you determine if the act is dolo or culpa?
Dolo is unlawful from the very beginning. Culpa is lawful from the very beginning. But later on becomes unlawful because of the non-performance of the required diligence. Like driving, it is lawful. But if later on due to non-performance of the due diligence of a good father of a family and hit a bystander, it becomes culpa. In this case, Article 4 (1) does not apply. That provision states “criminal liability shall be incurred. . . by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.” The word wrongful there means that it can only apply to dolo which is unlawful or wrongful from the very beginning. Article 4 (1) cannot apply to culpa.
You come into the classroom, you started firing a gun, then you hit someone. That is dolo. The act of shooting is wrongful from the very beginning.
If intent is absent in dolo but the other elements are present, what is the effect? No criminal liability. The act is justified. If intelligence is absent in dolo, what is the effect? There is criminal liability but the person is exempt from criminal liability. If freedom is absent in dolo, what is the effect? There is also a crime committed but is likewise exempt from criminal liability. The act done was not voluntary.
If there is intent, freedom, and intelligence in dolo, what is the effect? There is criminal liability.
There is intelligence but the intelligence is not complete? No total absence of intelligence? There is still a crime committed. But there is a mitigating circumstance.
Session 2: MISTAKE OF FACT TO STAGES OF CRIMES
We will have a recitation and then will have lecture, especially on Article 6 to Article 10. There are some that I think we have to move a little faster because there are a lot of special laws to study. Okay. And then probably I will give you some surprise quizzes.
P: So, never mind I will (unintelligible) do not go yet. However, I will just ask you, mistake of law. Have we taken up mistake of the law? I ask you these question: Is the offender liable? Is the actor or the one who commits the act liable in mistake of the law? Is he criminally liable in the mistake of the law or (unintelligible) laws?
S: Yes, sir P: Liable?
S: Under (unintelligible) laws. P: Liable? Why liable?
S: He is liable in the (category) because any (unintelligible) is actually – he has more (culpability) under the law because in the mere act that…
P: I told you last time if you know the essential elements of dolo, you will be able to know the answer. In the mistake of the law are there elements of dolo present? Are all the elements present? What are the elements of dolo? Intent. What did I tell you? If there is the absence of intent in dolo, what is the effect? If there is absence, no crime. In mistake of the law, are all the elements of dolo present? Is there intent in mistake of the law? Is there intent?
S: There is an intent, sir.
P: Is there intelligence in the mistake of the law? S: Yes, (unintelligible).
P: Of course, there is. Is the act voluntary or they are also liable? What about the mistake of identity? Is the actor or the one committing the act is criminally liable in the mistake of identity?
S: Yes, sir. P: Why?
S: Yes, because the act is deliberately done.
P: Are all the elements of dolo requirement are present? S: Yes.
P: What about in mistake of fact? S: The actor is not liable. P: Why?
S: Because in committing the act, the actor has done an act which if he had no - if he had known otherwise, then such act is not deemed unlawful.
P: Is there intent on the part of the offender? S: No, sir.
P: Is there freedom? That's voluntary, of course. Is there intelligence? Of course. What is no intent in mistake of fact? Why no intent? Why no criminal intent?
P: No intent to harm the person? Why? If there is lack of intention to harm, you are liable, but your liability will only be mitigated, ano ha.
S: Because otherwise, the act would be in violation of the law.
P: O baka - probably absence of intent. Not lack of intention, total absence of intent. Why no intent? S: Because it can… criminal intent.
P: No, in incriminate himself, creation of facts. What did he do with the act? Why do you say there is absence of intent in the mistake of fact?
S: Sir, may I answer as an example, may (unintelligible), sir?
P: Never mind the examples, your elements might be wrong. Just tell me, why did he commit the act? Why did you commit the act?
S: We did the act upon presumption that you can (unintelligible) law firm. But before the act must be (unintelligible). P: O pag sinabi na kung sinong marunong sa question eh, mali yon. It should not be based on presumption. S: He would not have done it…
P: Had he known, had he known. Had he known, then he would not have committed the act. If there is such where the offender could be liable, let's say, he put up a defense of mistake of fact assuming that there is no intent, would he still be liable? In what?
S: In case he did not exercise due diligence resulting to negligence.
P: In failure to exercise the required diligence. However, if he fails to exercise the required diligence.
S: For example, sir, in the case of (unintelligible) for example, if he would not ascertain who was the (unintelligible) can be liable.
P: So he can still be liable under culpa? He did not exercise the required diligence in ascertaining in due facts and circumstances. Tayo immediately, initially react. Did you already take up mala in se and mala prohibita? So let’s go now to Paragraph 1 of Article 4. So, mala prohibita, the intent and motive. You know the difference between intent and motive? Is motive an essential element of dolo? What is the difference between intent and motive? What is its significance in Criminal Law? S: Motive, sir is the moving power, which is the (precursor) to do the act. It is not an element in dolo, but (unintelligible) it can be taken into consideration (unintelligible). For example, if the identity of the accused is not…
P: So motive is important when the identity of the offender is in question. Next, you determine the motive of the offender. It is never an essential element of the crime of dolo. I’ll take care of the part 1. Ms. Samonte, let's do Paragraph 1 of Article 4. Will you recite Paragraph 1 of Article 4?
S: Paragraph 1 of Article 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony… P: Committing a felony?
S: Felony or delito. P: Then?
S: By means of – and then although the act done is (unintelligible). P: Although the act – that is not accurate. It must be wrongful. S: Although the wrongful act done...
P: It is not only act because I was telling you last time when you refer to an act that might be culpa because I told you that the difference between dolo and culpa. In dolo, the act is wrongful from the very beginning. In culpa, it is not. The act is lawful from the very beginning. However, it later on became unlawful because of imprudence, negligence, lack of skill, or lack of foresight. A
felony maybe committed although the wrongful act done maybe different from what he actually intended to commit, as I was telling you last time. Is that principle applicable to culpa?
S: Sir, no.
P: Why not applicable?
S: Paragraph 1 is not applicable to the culpa. It’s emphasis …
P: Nakalagay dyan wrongful act although different from what it indented. Therefore, it refers on the intentional crimes or dolo not culpa. In mistake of the laws that – what is the principle that is applicable in the mistake of the laws is Paragraph 1 of Article 4?
S: Sir, yes, sir.
P: In Article 4 that is mistake of the law. S: Yes, sir there is no intent.
P: So mistake of the law is simply Paragraph 1 Article 4? What is the effect if you are criminally liable under Paragraph 1 of Article of 4? In the other words, the offender is criminally liable. What is the other legal consequence if you fall under Paragraph 1 Article 4?
S: Sir, it will fall under Paragraph 1 of Article 4, if there is still (dialogue)…
P: No that's – that's correct. Aside from being criminal liable, because the law is very clear. Let us try to think. What is the other consequence, legal consequence of being criminally liable under Paragraph 1 of Article of 4?
S: Sir, your liability maybe mitigated.
P: Your liability will be mitigated. Mitigated. You will find that in Paragraph 3 of Article 13. Lack of intention to commit so grave wrong. Now, if that is the other effect of being liable under Paragraph 1 of Article 4, so in the mistake of the law their liability will be mitigated just because there is a mistake of the law? So, in a mistake of the law their liability will be mitigated? According to you, Paragraph 1 of Article 4 is applicable to the mistake of the law, so in the mistake of the law the liability of the offender will be likewise be mitigated because under Paragraph 1 of Article 4, if there is lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, then you are entitled to a mitigating circumstance. In the other words, these mistakes of the law the same as Paragraph 1 of Article of 4? And, therefore, your liability is limited or mitigated with mistake of the law?
S: Sir, I think, Paragraph 1, the crime is still there, but the mistake of the victim…
P: That's why Paragraph 1 of Article 4 must be referred to Article 13 Paragraph 3. That's the effect of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, wrongful act done should be different from he intended to commit, but you are still liable.
S: Yes, sir.
So, my question is mistake of the law or mistake of identity or (unintelligible) separately, do they fall under Paragraph 1 of Article 4? Or is not that principle that is applicable.
Sir, if it (unintelligible)…
You know the mistake of the law there is mitigation of liability. (Unintelligible) there is no mitigation or liability just because you kill or injure another person that will not mitigate your liability. The lack of intention or Paragraph 1 of Article 4 that we are talking about, the act done is different from we intended to commit. How do you determine the intention of the offender, by the way? Uhm…
Criminal, di ba? How do you determine the intention of the offender? Sir, may overt act.
May overt act because the intent is state of mind then you can only determine the intention of the offender from the acts that he commit, I mean, that he performs. So, manifestation is manifested by the acts that he performs. If somebody is driving his patient and then bumps another person, then there is no intention to kill the person, but the person dies. Will that example fall under Paragraph 1 of Article 4?
No, sir.
No. Why do you say so? The one is driving a vehicle and then he bumped another person, no intention to kill, but the person died. Paragraph 1 is applicable?
It may fall under culpa.
Culpa. If you defend. If the bumping is intentional then it will fall under Paragraph 1 of Article of 4 because he did not intend to kill the victim, but the victim died. But if the act is culpa, will you apply Paragraph 1 of Article of 4? No, it is not applicable because there is culpa. What is (unintelligible) by the way?
Documents that which in the national – goes to the national (unintelligible). Proximate cause
A stabbed B. B did not die. Instead B was (wrongful) because of the act, then after 10 days he died because of the stab wounds. There was an intervention of the medical attention or medical assistance. Do you think that that is proximate cause?
Sir, it depends if the….
I thought you said not disturbed, but in so far as the (unintelligible) of time? I'm asking you, if the victim was stabbed today or 10 days ago, was brought to the hospital, he was cured by the doctor, but 10 days after the hospital he die in the hospital of stab wound. Is that proximate cause? Because he died of the same stab wounds that he suffered 10 days ago?
Yes, sir, it’s a …
Does proximate cause allow sufficient interval of time ?
Sir, from what I (remember) before, that time actually is not controlling in determining whether it is a (proximate cause).
Okay. So we will try to (multiply) the example. So, he was stabbed 10 days ago then he was brought to the hospital. He was allowed by the doctor, “Okay, you may now go.” Then after getting out from the hospital, three days after he was released from the hospital he died, likewise, of a stab wound. Would there be any difference between the two examples?
As long as, sir, the cause of the death was because of the …
In both cases, the stab wound (was there). I'm just asking you, I'm just giving two examples whether or not in both cases proximate cause – I followed what you were saying – proximate cause is likewise applicable. But according to you, the interval of time is not important in the proximate cause, hindi ba? That's what you said that’s why I gave you another example.
Yes, sir, but I think in that example what (unintelligible) infected… In other words, it depends if he was cured or not.
Yes, sir.
If he die in the hospital by reason of the stab wound, then the medical attention is not sufficient interval of time because he did not get well when he died. So, the victim died, you can immediately conclude that the cause of death is the stab wound. What if he was cured and then later on went home, is that medical treatment – that they gave medical treatment an interval of time, sufficient interval time and, therefore, proximate cause is only applicable?
Sir, it may (intend) to be applicable…
There is already sufficient interval of time because he was already cured, hindi ba? Sir, I think the interval of time would actually – if there were other factors aside from…
He was already cured, di ba sabi mo. Ten days after the hospital, there is no problem if he died in the hospital that would still be proximate cause because if the victim (was treated) in the hospital it is not a sufficient interval of time because he was not cured eh. But supposing he was cured, then 10 days after he went out of the hospital then 3 days after coming out from the hospital, probably he went to a KTV bar, uminom siya. Then three days after the hospital release, namatay siya. Would you still consider that proximate cause?
Sir, not anymore, if…
Okay. Would you now consider the offender, the one who stabbed him, liable for the crime of homicide assuming that the crime is homicide?
Sir, he maybe liable if the result of – it is possible that his…
Supposing he died after coming out of the hospital. Supposing he died three days after because the doctor made a mistake in releasing him. He should have not been released or being (thought) to release him. Then three days after, he died. Would the offender still be liable?
Yes, sir, because it would not – it would still be proximate cause because the intervention…
As long as the stab wound is the primary cause of his death, the offender would still be liable. Under what principle? Sir, under the principle that – the Paragraph (unintelligible).
But is that proximate cause? What? Is that under the principle of proximate cause? Yes, sir.
But supposing he was already cured and then he died. Released, died, released. He was released and then died. He did not follow the instructions of the doctor.
Yes, sir. (Unintelligible) of the offender.
If the cause of death is independent from the stab wound, then he can no longer be liable. But if the death is due to the stab wound, he could still be liable.
Okay. What about the accelerated cause? Have you heard the principle of accelerated cause? Or (unintelligible) cause under Paragraph 1. What is it?
Sir, the accelerated cause establishes as inflicted by the - that accelerated the death of the victim.
Before, there was that case that was decided by the Supreme Court, a bullet, that case is debatable. Why? Because the husband elbowed the wife was suffering from what?
Sir, from…
Serious heart ailment. Sabi dito, she has a serious heart ailment and because of that? Sir, she died.
Before she died. Siyempre, she was shot, di ba? Yes.
Her condition was aggravated by the head wound. So because of the injury, the principle that is applicable is accelerated or aggravated because the husband aggravated or accelerated the death of the wife, di ba? Di ba proximate cause yon? She is already better because of proximate cause because elbowing is wrongful. It is causing injury. That is the meaning of wrongful. You fire a gun inside the room, only to frighten us and because of the time, because of the Bundy clock or the (unintelligible). Not inside the car, (unintelligible) dalawa. In another class, for example, a student is firing outside the room. One of the students was frightened, jumped out of the window, and then fell. And then died. Would that person who fired the gun inside the room be liable for the death of the student? Why?
Sir, because by the act of firing the gun caused the other person… By the act, by the wrongful act done.
That's why that wrongful act is very important. Because if the act is lawful, you're not liable. That’s the main premise. The act must be wrongful. Is the act such as firing a gun wrongful?
Is firing a gun wrongful? It is wrongful. That’s alarm and scandal. That is punishable. When you speak of wrongful act that means that is punishable. Minsan nga that is considered as a felony or an offense. That's wrongful. Now, okay. So, proximate cause. Let’s go to another one. Magagaling naman pala kayo eh. Very good.
Impossible crime
Robles, Margarita? Margarita? Yes? Chua and Babor, absent?. Di ko nakikita yung dalawang yun. Chua, I think, was present last time. Robles? Okay, let's go to impossible crime. I’m already testing. What is impossible crime as defined in Paragraph 2 of Article 4?
An impossible crime is…
Louder, louder, because of you miss a word of the definition, your answer will be wrong. So, be careful, start. Impossible crime is a crime in which would be an offense against persons or property, but…
Ano, ano, ano? Wag mong bilisan. An impossible crime is a crime which…
It should not have been a crime against person. It's not a crime of against persons or property because it should have been the crime. Because if the crime is already crime against person or property, there is no impossible crime. So if you say it is a crime against person or property, then that is not a impossible crime because it is already consummated crime against persons or properties. It should have been a crime against persons or property. Continue. (Unintelligible). Wherein?
Wherein?
(Unintelligible) suppositions. It should have been a crime against persons or property were it not for its… Inherent the impossibility of accomplishment for…
Due to?
On account of employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. On account of?
Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
So that's how simple it is, di ba? Is the offender, the one under (principle of) impossible crime, is the person criminally motivated? In other words, does he have intention to commit a crime in Paragraph 2 in impossible crimes?
Yes.
Yes, of course. Why? Because he is criminally liable. Is he criminally liable even in impossible crimes? Yes, sir.
Pewdeng gawin yun. So, what must be explained in the first part of the definition? It should have been a crime against persons or property. What do you understand by that first part of the definition?
Uhm…
Because, yes, if should having a crime against person or property. How do you explain that first part of the definition. Uhm…
In other words, impossible crime is applicable only in those crimes that should have been crimes against person or property, not applicable to…
Other crimes like what? Acts of lasciviousness, not applicable because that's a crime against chastity. Falsification, perjury, crimes against security of the state, crimes involving public order. No impossible crime. Limited only to those persons or properties. So you start from Article 245 or 246. You start from the crime of parricide up to the crime of slight physical injuries. And then from Article 293 to Article 320, arson. All of those. Persons are those found from 246 to 266-A. And then you find the crimes against property from 293 to 332. All of these crimes are crimes against property. So, limited only to those crimes. Give an example. What about inherently? What do you mean by when the law, the second phrase of the definition? It should have been a crime against persons or property were it not for its inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. What do you mean by that phrase?
That by inherent impossibility to accomplish that, it means that even if you commit all…
When is it inherently possible, impossible to accomplish. Because of its inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. What is inherently impossible?
Sir…
So, person who has no hands. So, it is impossible for him to commit a crime of (murder). Is that inherent impossibility? No, a…
So what's the inherent impossibility? Does it refer to the person committing the crime? No, to that crime itself. For example….
Or does it refer to something else?
To the act of committing the crime, for example, if you want -you intended to kill a person when (unintelligible).
Can you kill a person who is already dead? Can you kill a person who is already dead? You cannot, so what is inherently impossible in that example? If you can not kill a person who is already dead, the law says inherently impossible. So what is inherently impossible in that example?
The act of killing the dead?
Oh, that's what they call legal impossibility. Legal impossibility. In other words, when one of the essential elements of the crime is inherently impossible to commit, that is the legal impossibility. For example, you can not kill a person who is already dead. And the requirement of killing is that a person who should be killed. Kasi requirement ng murder or homicide, and even in parricide, eh. That's the meaning of legal impossibility. One of the essential requirements of the crime can never be accomplished and impossible to accomplish because you cannot kill a person that is already dead.
What is the other? This one, again, is debatable. This case has been many times in the bar exams. There was another decision that came up later on after this case. It was decided in the Supreme Court that, I said it is debatable in the sense that that case now refers to another impossibility. Gusto mo legal impossibility lang? Now, they have included another impossibility. What is it? It refers to factual impossibility.
Factual impossibility. For me, that's debatable because there's so no such thing as factual impossibility. (Unintelligible) on the part of the offender. The offender has the intention to rob, then (unintelligible) in part robbing somebody else, hindi ba? If there is no money, then it is a crime committed of the impossible crime, there is no such thing as attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always consummated. Walang stage ang impossible crime.
So if you want to rob somebody, you want to rob your auntie. Somebody else was waiting along the street in front of Ateneo and then pointed a knife. Never mind the knife, then he said, "Give me your money or else I will kill you." Then the would-be victim put out all the contents of his pocket. Nothing was found inside the pocket. How do you call that? Is that impossible? Is that an impossible crime? Is that factual or legal impossibility? Factual yan eh. That is factual impossibility which is according to the Supreme Court is very hard. You cannot probably commit a crime if he subject matter of the crime is not there. Yan ang factual eh. Like in the case of the one that I asked you to read that case of Intod. What happened in Intod? Di ba they wanted to kill somebody else, then they went to the house. Got only heavy firearms and then fired the gun at the house. The house was peppered with bullets. But was the victim inside the house?
No, (unintelligible).
The court said that accused had the intention of killing the occupant of the house and that it turned out that the…
Belliones was out of the house, di ba? So, what happened? What was the liability of those who fired the gun at the house, trying to kill the would-be victim, and the victim was not there? Ano ang sabi ng Supreme Court? What crime did they commit? Attempted murder? Alarm and scandal? Sabi ng Supreme Court impossible crime because there was intention to kill and were in it was impossible to kill somebody else who was not inside the house. But the principle of impossible crime is that you will not apply the principle of impossible crime if the offenders are guilty of another crime. There was already another crime committed when they fired their guns. It’s either alarm and scandal or attempted. They have already commenced directly by overt act, di ba?
The Supreme Court said that is an impossible crime. It is like going to the bank. The one who robbed the bank. You are inside the bank. You disarm all the guards and then open the vault. Nothing was found. Is that impossible crime? The intention is already very clear. To rob. Anyway, that’s the doctrine. So, do not change the doctrine. Baka mamaya lahat yan (unintelligible). That was one of the problems asked in the bar exams where (unintelligible) committee in UP to answer the bar questions. Nagbibigay kami ng alternative answer. Somebody said that’s alarm and scandal. Okay. That’s attempted murder. Okay. That’s impossible crime. Okay. Alternative eh. Kasi you can just imagine you have all (ordinance) what’s the penalty of impossible crime.
Do you know what’s the penalty of impossible crime? Not more than 6 months. With Intod and company were found guilty of attempted murder, then they would have been penalized – the penalty of which would have been prision mayor. That is the penalty of attempted murder, two degrees lower from the crime of murder. So, that’s prision mayor. Six years and 1 day. But they were liable only for the crime of impossible crime. They fired their guns with all the intention of killing somebody else. The penalty is only six months. Impossible crime, di ba? Unfair yon.
Supposing that victim was actually in the house, but he was hiding, like Robin Padilla. Tinadtad na ng bala yung bahay, buhay pa rin si Robin. Andun sa ano, what do you call this – he dug a hole. He dug a hole, they fired all their guns. Then all of a sudden, Robin Padilla appeared well and alive. What’s the crime? Is that still impossible crime? That’s not anymore an impossible crime. Why? Why not impossible crime if the would-be victim was there, but he was able to hide? Bakit hindi impossible crime yun?
It might fall under legal impossibility… What?
It might fall under legal impossibility or factual impossibility...
There is no factual impossibility. Why factual impossibility? He can be killed because he was there. It's not a matter of survival or surviving the incident just because he was able to hide. Yung ang diperensya nun. Pag andun sa loob, attempted murder yun. Pag wala sa loob, impossible crime yun. Anyway, that’s the decision.
So let's now go to the last part of the definition. Impossibility of its accomplishment on account of? Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Okay. Supposing somebody is courting you and you do not like the boy. Somebody is courting you. You do not like the boy, but he is very persistent. Your suitor is very persistent. You gave him Coke laced with salt thinking that the salt is fertilizer. You wanted to kill your suitor, in other words, because he is persistent. So, you ask him to drink the Coke. You thought then that it was laced with – what do you call the cow fertilizer? Only that it was salt that was put inside his soft drink. (Unintelligible). Then he even asked for more. Is that impossible crime?
Yes, sir, because I'm not capable… O sige. Yes, but?
I employed…
You wanted to kill your suitor. You laced your soft drinks with poison, fertilizer. But instead of poison that you placed inside, it was actually salt. You did not know that it was salt because your intention really is to kill. Your victim did not die. It was salt, eh. Humingi pa nga eh. Is that impossible crime?
O, but you laced it with something that could not kill him because you wanted to kill him, but instead of fertilizer you put salt eh. Salt cannot kill.
Yes, sir, but then I thought hypothetically…
Is that what you mean by the last phrase of the definition? What was the last phrase in the definition? Employment of ineffectual means…
Due to the?
Inadequate or ineffectual means.
Kasi that's the problem in your answer. Kanina kasi you did not use inadequate eh. You used the word ineffectual. So, that also may be truth, inadequate. So, the thing that was phrased there is inadequate. That means it not sufficient to kill. But supposing he placed a poison, so that maybe covered by impossible crime because you used the word inadequate because I asked that problem. I gave that problem.
Supposing, you place a poison in the soft drink laced with poison, then he drank it, and then he asked for more. Your answer is could be the same? That it is an impossible crime?
I think..
Why impossible crime?
Employment of ineffectual means.
Supposing he vomited and then he was brought to the hospital. For two days he stayed in the hospital. Is that impossible crime? No more. There is no impossible crime if another crime is already committed. There is no impossible crime. That’s why I was telling you about that Intod eh. That could not have been an impossible crime because firing a gun is already alarm and scandal eh. The Supreme Court said no more. Once a crime is already - once an act is already defined as a crime, no more impossible crime. You will be liable there for frustrated or attempted murder with the use of poison.
Now, A is already dead. A is already dead and then somebody saw that one who is (unintelligible) fired his gun, but that person is already dead. What is the liability of the man who fired the gun? Is he liable at all? So, if the man is already dead, Mr. A. That man hits A, then fired his gun, but that man is already dead. Is the one who - will be call the person who fired criminally liable? No, sir.
No? No? That is impossible to commit. Can you kill the person who is already dead? He is already dead. And then his enemy was passing. And then, he saw the man who is already dead, fired the gun at the person who is already dead. Is that not impossible crime?
Yes, sir…
It will depend? Why do you have to qualify your answer? The man fired the gun should not know that he's already dead because if the man knows or knew that he was already dead, there is an impossible crime. He should know that he is ano… Is there's such a crime of impossible crime in the crime of rape?
Yes, sir. When the act is… When they're dead siguro. Under the new law…
But the man will be crazy. He will be liable for stupidity. Why? He is raping a woman who is already dead. It's stupid! Now, the problem there is because in impossible crime the offender should not know that the victim is dead because that is the essence of impossible crime.
]
Let's say one – there is, you know – it’s part of a joke. Part of a joke but can be the principle of impossible crime is applicable. If you kill a dog, what's the crime? You do not know? That's my (unintelligible). As long as the dog is domesticated under Article 327. If a dog is domesticated, then it becomes a personal property under the Civil Code, eh. No, tama, a pet is domesticated. Animals, personal property yan eh on the Civil Code. You can destroy personal property.
So the maid of a law student was bitten by a dog owned by the neighbor. The maid was bitten by a dog by the neighbor. Now, the law student loves the maid very much, she was bitten by the dog, so the law student killed the dog. That’s a crime of malicious mischief. But supposing the dog did not die. He was able to run and survive. What's the crime committed? Binaril niya o initak niya but the dog ano – nasa example yan eh. He burned a dog, eh. He burned the dog, diba? If you want eat the dog, you have to burn it. That is how to eat it. That’s what they do in Baguio.
So, if you burn something that is assault. Burning of a personal property is an assault. So, he burned the dog and then the dog died - baka arson yan. But if the dog did not die, what's the crime? So, sabi ano yan – that’s malicious mischief, I mean that is impossible crime because you cannot commit attempted or frustrated malicious mischief. That is always consummated.
But if somebody ate the dog after it was killed, what's the crime? (Meron ba?) So, the dog was killed, malicious mischief. If the dog did not die or almost died, that is an impossible crime. It should have been a crime against property, but because of this inherent impossibility. Why? Due to ineffectual means employed. So, that (part of the) impossible crime.
If the dog died, then you eat the dog, you are not an accessory. What’s the crime? That’s theft, simple theft under Paragraph B of Article 308. We will study that when you take up accessory. You make use of the damaged property by reason of malicious mischief that is simple theft; Paragraph B of Article 308 on simple theft. Well, anyway, that will be impossible crime.
So, therefore, is there such a crime as impossible crime in the crime is rape? Yes, sir. After the (unintelligible).
After the law under rape made it a crime against person, there could now be a crime of impossible crime in the crime of rape. But, supposing a man wanted to insert his private organ into the private organ of the (victim). Then instead he went through the other orifice of the woman, is that impossible crime? That was a question asked in the bar exams four years ago when this law became effective. Some said - some gave the answer mistake of the blow. Some said impossible crime, but the answer is sexual assault as a form of rape under Republic Act 8353. That’s a crime of sexual assault. It’s a form of rape or rape through sexual assault under Article 266-B or Republic Act 8353 as included now in the crime of rape and crimes against person. Maraming interesting ngayon sa Book Two because ang daming special laws, di ba?
So, let's take a break. 'Wag na tayong mag break para I can dismiss you early. Sir, question?
Yes?
Sir, the inadequacy or the ineffectual means, is it a material factor that the offender being that the means employed where inadequate?
Because this maybe this was intentionally done, but it is ineffectual, then, yes, you did not intend to kill or injure the victim (unintelligible).
He must not know it is…
He does not know it, of course. That’s why if my cellphone (unintelligible), you did not know it.
Now, okay, let's go to last – madali na nga eh, I will take care of the rest in crimes against persons. We’ll just take up the definitions of attempted, frustrated, and consummated. And then I will take up the examples because we’re not yet in Book Two, okay.
Article 6 Attempted felony
For Article 5, you just read. When does criminal liability commence? When do you say one is criminally liable in mala in se because mala prohibita, it’s mere violation, di ba? As a rule, there are no stages of crime in mala prohibita, but they have included some attempted in special law. Meron attempted human trafficking, meron attempted conspiracy to maintain (unintelligible). Marami na actually ito in conspiracy in special laws. We should study the topic in Book Two, pwede na natin ma-retake. We will study some of these in Article 8. (Unintelligible).
When does criminal responsibility or liability start? When
Sir, the moment the offender commences the form of an overt act...
Are you sure your answer is correct? Or you missed something? I think you missed a word in the law that makes the difference. Commences by overt act? Overt acts are physical acts. So, anything that you commence as along as it is an overt act…
I'm sorry. Commences the commission of crime (of theft) is directly liable…
You use the word “directly.” Because I will give you an example. I want to kill somebody else. I want to kill somebody else with the use of a gun. So, I put bullets in the gun, that is an overt act, is it not? Placing bullets in the gun is an overt act and I want to kill somebody else, will I know be criminally responsible for attempted felony? But, I already commenced, eh, by overt act eh. The commencement refers to the loading my gun with bullets. Can I now be liable for attempted killing because I have already a gun? The gun is already loaded with bullets.
Not yet, sir.
Not yet. So, you have to include the word “directly.” What do you understand by the word “directly”? You commence directly by overt act.
Directly means in performing the act is the…
Directly, importante yan eh. Okay, we'll go – I don’t know. I'll go further with my examples. So, I loaded the gun with bullets, overt act yan. I want to kill somebody else. Is that an attempted felony although I have already commenced that overt act? Not yet.
Not yet, sir.
If I see my would-be victim and then I drew my gun, I shoot the victim. Nang makita ko yung victim, I drew my gun. Am I already liable for attempted felony or an attempt to kill somebody else? Am I already liable if I drew the gun in front of my would-be victim? That is another overt act. Will I be liable for attempted felony?
Sir, not yet.
Why? How do you determine the intention of the offender? The reason why the law says commencement directly by overt act – that simply means that that is the time when they can determine what is the intention of the offender because intention is a state of mind. It is manifested by the overt acts of the would-be offender.
So, even if I drew my gun in front of my would-be victim, you cannot yet tell if I have the intention to kill. If I draw my gun like that, I draw my gun, and then did like that. I drew my gun. Does it show already my intention to kill?
Uhm…
Not yet. For all you know, I might be even give the gun to my would-be victim. How would you know that I have intention? Because you cannot read my mind. But I pointed the gun at him, and then I say, “I will kill you now.” I pointed the gun. Is there already an intention to kill if I pointed the gun?
Yes.
Because the meaning of directly commencing by overt acts. In other words, the overt acts now must show a clear intention of the offender. It is not merely the commencement of overt acts. Directly by overt acts. There must now be a connection between the – you can now already conclude from the acts of the would-be offender his intention to kill.
Okay, continue with the definition. Commencement directly by overt act. Continue with the definition. But, it is the definition, sir of attempted…
Yun ah, attempted felony. ituloy, ituloy that’s the first part eh.
When the offender commences the commission of an offense directly by overt act, but does not perform…
All the acts of execution. So, I will ask you again. What do you understand if the offender has not yet performed all acts of execution?
It is (unintelligible) refers to voluntary?
Huh? Nawala. Pag sinabi mong has not yet performed all the acts of execution, it does refer anymore to the intention of the offender. The intention of the offender na-establish mo na eh. Ung commencement directly by overt acts. That second phrase is now different from the intention. The intention is already very clear because already commenced directly by overt acts, but the
definition says, but she has not yet performed all the acts of execution. Why do you have to determine if he has performed all the executable acts?
To determine what is the stage…
To determine what stage of the felony? So, what do you say then? He not yet performed all the acts of execution. When there are other acts to be performed to accomplish the intent.
Yes, to perform other acts. I fired my gun, you were not here. I have the intention to kill Have I performed all the acts of execution? I fired my gun. I have the intention to kill. Example lang, you are standing there (unintelligible) standing there. So, I want to kill you. I fire my gun. You were not here. Have I performed all the acts of execution?
Yes, sir.
Yes? You were not here? I thought you said you still have acts to perform. No, sir.
No, not yet. So, what should I do in order to kill you? (Unintelligible)
I have to hit you. So, if I did not hit you, I have not yet performed all the execution because I have to perform other acts. In other words, when you say you have performed all the acts of execution, there is nothing more to be done except to wait for the result. Wala ka ng gagawin eh. Tingnan mo na lang kung tapos na o hindi. Ngunit kung meron ka pa gagawin, attempted yon. You have not yet performed all the acts of execution, due to what? What is the reason why you have not yet performed? You continue. You go to the last phrase on – other crime being?
By process of…
Or process of? Other than the? The voluntary…
Hindi, hindi voluntary yan eh. Hindi voluntary surrender yan. The law does not yet (unintelligible) overt act. Other than…
Spontaneous desistance. What do you understand by spontaneous desistance? Continuously performs means that the (finally) decided to desist.
Okay. I'll give you an example. I fired my gun. The victim was not here. You listen ha? Kasi I will quote another example later on. So, I fired my gun, the victim was not here. Then, I realized that killing is wrong, so I run away. Do you follow? Is there an attempted felony? I fired my gun, you were not here, and then I realized that killing is wrong, then I run away from the place. Is there attempted felony? Or second example. I fired my gun, you were not here, and I ran away because I saw of my law students around. That’s my second example. I fired my gun, he was hit on the shoulder, and then I realized that killing is wrong, I ran away. So, you will now answer the question, Ms. (Unintelligible). The number one example, I run away, you are not hit. I realized that killing is wrong…
There was no attempted felony.
There is no attempted felony. Number two. Attempted case, there was an attempted felony. Number three.
Sir, (unintelligible).
What are you supposed to respond. You were hit on the shoulder and I realized later. The example that I am giving you is about the desistance, what is the effect of desistance. So, in the first example, there is no attempted felony. Why attempted felony.
Because the (unintelligible).
During the attempted stage. If there was a spontaneous desistance. Why spontaneous desistance? (Unintelligible).
What about in the second example? I fired my gun, you look at me, and I ran away because I saw the presence of my law students.
The desistance was caused by other reasons than (unintelligible). So, the desistance is not spontaneous, therefore, liable.
Yes.
Number three. He was hit on the shoulder and then I realized killing is wrong, then I ran away. You cannot anymore desist because he was already injured. He can no longer desist because he was already injured. That is spontaneous desistance presupposed that the victim has not yet been hit. Because if he is already hit, you will already become criminally – no more desistance. You cannot turn back.
So, let's go further. So that is spontaneous desistance. But, you can be liable assuming that you spontaneously desisted and, therefore, you are not liable for an attempted felony or attempted killing. Will that be liable?
Sorry sir…
Will you not be liable for - di ba if you spontaneously desisted on the attempted stage… Yes, you won't be liable.
The principle, may kadugtong 'yong principle na yan. You will not be liable for attempted felony, but it should be penalized for the acts that you already performed. It's not that you're not criminally liable.
Sir, you're criminally liable.
You are not liable for the crime that you intended to commit because there was a spontaneous desistance in the attempted felony. But you will have to be penalized for the act that you have already performed if it is punishable. You will not be liable for attempted felony, but you will become liable for the crime of grave threat.
In other words, that principle is applicable, but you may be liable for another crime if your act is already punishable as a consummated crime under the Republic Act (unintelligible). You can still be liable for grave threat. So, let's go now to frustrated felony.
Article 6 Frustrated felony
The frustrated felony is when the offender performs all acts that are necessary to accomplish the felony…
'Yan ang pinakamadali. You want to kill, then if he'll survive, probably that's frustrated. 'Yan ang isasagot mo eh. Perform all the acts of execution. Continue…
The felony was not committed.
Was not consummated, was not accomplished.
Was not accomplished for someone other than the independent will of the perpetrator. It is not other that. Causes other than the?
Independent will of the perpetrator.
Causes the will, like for example, the victim survives due to medical assistance, independent will. So, okay. Article 6 Consummated felony
When a felony was…
Was accomplished. Those, however, those stages of the felony may not be applicable in certain crimes. So, if you're reading this book, supposing you are asked: The victim survives in a crime against person, what's the stage of the felony? If the victim survived in a crime against persons, survived ha, what is the stage of the felony? Anong magagawa niya? That will depend on the intention of the offender. If the intention of the offender is to kill, then you can be sure that the crime is either attempted or frustrated, the victim does not die.
Now, if there's absence of intent to kill, that cannot be attempted or frustrated, but will either be serious physical injuries, less serious or slight physical injuries or even intentional mutilation. So, if the victim survived, therefore, in a crime against person like – crimes against persons, your answer should be, what is the intention of the offender? Wag mo agad sasagutin 'yon. Supposing the question is: A victim survived his injuries, but stayed in the hospital for three months, and he almost died? Isasagot mo dun, frustrated because he almost died. You have to determine what is the intention of the offender.
Determining the intention of offender in crimes against persons will depend on the manner of committing the crime, the weapon used, and likewise the utterances, if there are any, before the commission of the crime.
Like for example, supposing somebody here was hit with a knife. Can you then conclude that there is intent to kill? No, you have to determine the intent, the manner of committing in using the knife. It cannot be determined by the weapon alone. Of course, the weapon used should be a lethal weapon that means capable of killing. The weapon used could be capable of killing. They have to determine the utterances made, if there are any. Like for example, “Papatayin kita,” with the knife…”Papatayin kita.” Yon ang intent to kill, and then the manner of using the knife. So, you have to consider these three factors.
But there will be instances where the weapon used may not be lethal weapon, but still there is an intent to kill because of the manner of committing it. Yung handkerchief. The handkerchief is not intended to kill. But, if you use the handkerchief to strangulate the victim or to choke him, because of the manner of committing the crime, may (attend) the intention to kill. (Unintelligible).
If you have already determined that there is an intent to kill, then the next thing that you will have to remember is what is the extent of the wounds of the victim. Assuming that there is intent to kill. You have already applied the test in determining if there is an intention to kill, then the next test is, I mean, to determine if it is attempted or frustrated is what is the extent of the wound of the victim. So, therefore, it will depend on the gravity or severity of the wounds.
If the wounds of the victims are mortal wounds or fatal wounds and, therefore the victim - ang definition ng mortal or fatal is that the victim should have died if there is no immediate medical assistance. The victim should have survived if there is medical assistance, no, that's not accurate. The victim should have died if there was no immediate medical assistance. Then, the wounds are mortal or fatal. But, if the victim would have survived even if there is no immediate medical assistance, the stage of the felony is attempted.
Question: But supposing the victim died, but there was no intent to kill? Supposing the victim died, but there is no intent to kill from the very beginning? Baka itanong nyo sa akin, sir, mayroon ba 'yon? Baka akala nyo when somebody died there's already intent to kill. No, that's not correct. Because the intention of the offender comes first before the result eh, di ba? So, therefore, the situation there is the victim died even if there is no intent to kill. So, what is your answer? That is a crime of homicide. If there is no intention to kill from the very beginning regardless of the manner of committing the crime, that is a crime of homicide. There's one case decided by the Supreme Court where the wounds sustained by the victim were not fatal or mortal from the very beginning. But, that case is susceptible in character. The victim was hacked… “Papatayin kita, then he was hacked. But the wounds were not mortal or fatal. The problem is that there was a distance between the place where he was hacked and the hospital. I think it would take several hours to reach the hospital where the victim could be brought. So, there was a delay in bringing the victim to the hospital. Then when the doctor treated him, the wound already contracted infections, and then the wound became mortal because the victim almost died. Nagkaroon ng infection 'yong wounds.
From a non-mortal wound, the wound became mortal because there was a delay in transporting the victim because of the distance between the hospital and the place of the hacking. Sabi ng Supreme Court that will be frustrated. That can be frustrated felony because that's not the fault of the victim. Non-fatal wound becomes fatal later on not attributable to the victim, then it becomes a frustrated felony.
Of course, as I said, if there is no intent to kill, then physical injuries regardless of the days of incapacity or the period of medical treatment. I wanted to ask you to read the case of People versus Inocencio Gonzalez that illustrates that. You remind me because that case should also be read together with Article 48 on complex crimes. That is a very interesting case illustrating the effect of lack of intent to kill from the very beginning and one of the victims died and one survived. But anyway, we will study that.
Have you heard about that case in 2001 where there was a traffic altercation in Loyola Heights? Have you heard about that problem? That case? 'Yong si Mr. Gonzalez quarreled with Mr. Andres over a parking lot and then Mr. Andres was with his wife. The wife was murdered at the back of his Toyota Revo. So, Mr. Gonzalez was driving his own vehicle with his father, and then Mr. Andres was driving the Toyota Revo, quarreled with Mr. Gonzalez over that parking area. But the quarrel (unintelligible). Then later on when the vehicle of Mr. Andres was already running away from scene, from the place, parking lot, Mr. Gonzalez got his gun and then fired the vehicle, just to frighten him according to the evidence, just to frighten him because he if he had the intention to kill, he could have directed or aimed the gun at the driver.
But what he did was, when the vehicle was already moving out…kasi pinagmumura niya eh…gago ka rin…pinahabol nya ng putok… Bang! The back of the vehicle was hit, but the pregnant wife was boarded at the back of the vehicle. Heavily tinted, you may not see from the outside if there were passengers at the back of the vehicle. And then the bullet hit the back portion, and then the bullet ricocheted, and then hit the tummy of the wife who was pregnant. And then the bullet, single bullet take off of the tummy of the wife, and then hit the child, the young boy. But the wife gave birth. The problem would have been complicated. But the wife gave birth to a healthy baby, but later on, the wife died, loss of blood. They have to save the baby, but they could not anymore save the mother. So, anyway, so the bullet exited from the left part, left or right, 'no? Anyway, left or right and hit the son, but the son survived, but he was hit by the bullet, by the same bullet.
So, the problem there is, so what's the crime of the offender? And that's what the Supreme Court said there is no intent to kill from the very beginning. So, if there's the intent to kill from the very beginning, there is no problem. He was liable for the crime of homicide in so far as the mother is concerned. But what about the other victim with the same bullet? Is he liable for frustrated or attempted homicide? No. He is only liable for slight physical injuries. Kahit na isang bullet, that is clear. It's a very interesting case. The reason there is that, if there is no intent to kill from the very beginning regardless of the manner committing the crime, then the victim died, the crime is homicide. But, if there is one who survived, that cannot be attempted or frustrated homicide. That will only be physical injuries. That's why I'm saying when the victim survived in a crime against person, then you will have to determine first the intent to kill. If there is no intent to kill, and I told you already how to determine the presence of intent to kill, it's not only the weapon, it is also the manner of committing.
The Supreme Court said the manner that he committed the crime of firing the gun, he had no intention to kill. Therefore, crime of homicide, but because it is the same bullet that hit the victim even if the victim survived, the crime could not be attempted or frustrated. That will be slight physical injury. But the other problem there that the Supreme Court said there were two crimes committed. There were two crimes, although there was only one bullet hitting two victims. Di ba complex crime 'yan, hindi ba? No, that's not a complex crime. There are two crimes because the - yan ang twist dun eh.
If you consider the other victim as attempted homicide, if assuming that the crime is homicide and attempted homicide that is a complex crime. Homicide complex with attempted homicide. But because it is only slight physical injury because there is no intent to kill, there are two crimes because slight physical injury cannot be complex with homicide.
Slight physical injury is a light felony. You can only complex grave or less grave felony. When you take the bar exams, and then there will be at least twist on the facts, be careful. Ganun lang ang sagot dun. No question has yet been asked on that (submitted) en banc decision on that case. It's a very difficult case. That will illustrate to you what I have been saying, that if the victim survived, do not answer it immediately as frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. Determine the intention of the offender and then apply the three tests. Apply the tests that I gave you, weapon used, is lethal weapon used, 'yong utterances, the circumstances or the manner of committing the act.
The other problem area about these three stages of the penalty is the crime of theft or robbery. When is theft or robbery consummated? There are many ways of committing a crime of theft or robbery. Of course you know what is theft. Mas madali i-determine 'yong theft, because theft is not attended by force or intimidation or violence or force (unintelligible). It's simply the unlawful taking of a personal property belonging to another. Mas madali lang, i-check ninyo kung consummated 'yan or frustrated or attempted theft.
But if the crime is robbery, mas mahirap i-determine yan because you are now to apply the test. When is robbery is consummated? When the offender is already in full control of the thing robbed, whether physical possession or control to dispose of the thing, subject matter of the asportation. So, it's not determined by the point in the time the offender is arrested. Kasi minsan ang wrong notion nila eh pag naaresto na consummated, kung hindi pa naaresto, attempted. No, that's not the point in determining if one has already committed the crime of (felony).
For example, give me your money or else I will kill you. Example I always use. I am pointing the gun at him. I have an intention to rob because that's what I said. Give me your money or else I will kill you. And then you give me your wallet and I'm holding your wallet with my left hand and then the gun is pointed at you and then a policeman saw me. You (unintelligible). Prrt! Magnanakaw. What is the stage of the felony?
Probably, you will say oh, that's not consummated because he was arrested before he could run away, but that's consummated crime of robbery. That’s consummated crime of robbery you apply – you apply the test. Number one, are you in full control of the
