TITLE ONE FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE Gepche FELONIES ART. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act ia performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Definitions: L Act — Must be overt or external (mere criminal thought or intent is not punishable). Any body movement tending to produce an effect. Examples: a. Stabbing a person; b. Firing of a gun; c, Falsification. Omission — Inaction or failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. Examples: 1, Failure to issue receipt; 23mh | CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE 2. Failure to report knowledge of conspiracy against the government; 3. Failure of an accountable officer to render accounts. General classes of crimes: 1. Intentional felonies; 2. Culpable felonies; 3. Crimes defined and penalized by special laws which include crimes punishable by municipal or city ordinances. The first two are defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code. FELONIES What are felonies? (Delitos) Felonies are acts and omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. (Art. 3, 1st par., RPC) What are the two ways of committing felonies? Felonies are committed by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault (culpa). Elements of felonies: 1, There must be an act or omission; 2. The act or omission must be punishable by the Revised Penal Code; 3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa; and 4. The act or omission must‘have been done voluntarily. Dolo (deceit) involves malice or deliberate intent. Culpa (fault) results from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Kinds of felonies: 1. Intentional felonies or felonies committed with malice or deliberate ieneTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 26 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES 2. Culpable felonies or felonies committed as a result of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. INTENTIONAL FELONIES Requisites: 1. The offender must have freedom while ‘doing the act or omitting to do the act; 2. The offender must have intelligence while doing the act or omitting to do the act; 3. The offender commits the act with intent. a. Freedom — that the act or omission was voluntary and without external compulsion; b. Intelligence — capacity to understand the morality and consequences of an sct but the perpetrator should not be a minor, insane or imbecile; c. Intent — is presumed unless otherwise disproved, with the commission an unlawful act. Examples of Intentional felonies: 1, With intent to kill, Johnny fired his gun at Bruno. The latter was hit and he died instantaneously. Johnny is liable for Homicide, an intentional felony. 2. Rod set the house of George on fire. As a result, the house of George was razed and turned to ashes. Rod'is liable for Arson, an intentional felony. CULPABLE FELONIES Requisites: 1. The offender must have freedom while doing the act or omitting to do the act; 2. The offender must have intelligence while doing the act or omitting to do the act; and 3. The offender is imprudent, negligent, or there is lack of foresight or skill while doing the act or omitting to do the act.26 CRIMINAL LAW |BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Culpable felonies result from negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight and lack of slcill. Negligence — Usually involves lack of foresight. A deficiency of perception or failure to pay proper attention and to use diligence to avoid a foreseeable damage or injury. Imprudence — Usually involves lack of skill. A deficiency of action or failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury or damage. Examples of culpable felonies: 1. During the celebration of New Year’s Day, P01 Caranto fired his armalite in the air to warmly welcome the New Year. One of the bullets hit and killed Joval, a jubilant merry maker. P01 Caranto is liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, a culpable felony. He did not act with intent to kill. In firing his gun though, he did not take into consideration that somebody can be injured or killed in the process. There was lack of foresight on his part. 2. Xa dump truck driver came upon a traffic red light. Instead of slackening his speed and eventually stop, he stepped on the accelerator. In the process, he hit and bumped the van of former Senator Rene Saguisag which was crossing the road. As a result, Dulce, the wife of the former senator died. For his part, Saguisag suffered serious physical injuries. X is liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries. He operated the dump truck in a reckless and imprudent manner resulting to the death and injuries to the wife and husband respectively. Note: In culpable felonies, it is necessary that the negligent or imprudent act be punished by law. It is not a crime if the omission is not punishable by law, Problem: A and B conspired to kill X by means of poison, C has knowledge of the conspiracy to commit murder. Despite such knowledge, C failed to disclose the same to the authorities. A and B thus killed X with the use of poison, Had C reported his knowledge of the conspiracy to commit murder, the authorities could have prevented the commission of the crime. For such‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMST/ AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY cee wiice * CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES omission, did C incur criminal liability particularly a culpable felony? Answer: No, he is not criminally liable. Thar is no law which punishes the failure or omission to report a conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit a felony. There is no such crime as misprision of felony. Query: Is criminal negligence a felony or only a modality in the commission of a crime? Answer: The rulings of the Supreme Court on the matter have not been definitive. In one esse, the high court said that criminal negligence orimprudenceisacrime itselfand the accused should be charged with “Reckleas Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.” (Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace, 97 Phil. 212) Then in another case, the Supreme Court held that it is only a variant or a way in the commission of a crime. (Samson vs. CA, 103 Phil 277) Thereafter, in subsequent decisions, the court adverted either to the two cases. Then in Madeja vs. Caro, 126 SCRA 298, it held that criminal negligence is only a modality in the commission of a crime. It is submitted that criminal negligence is both a felony and a modality of its commission. It is a felony because Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code treats criminal negligence as a felony. It punishes reckless imprudence and simple imprudence. Thus, it punishes Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, etc. It is also a modality in the commission of a felony because there are felonies which result from criminal negligence such as Malversation thru negligence (Art. 224) and Failure to render accounts. (Art. 218) Intentional felony distinguished from Culpable felony 1, In intentional felony, there is malice. In culpable felony, the act is not malicious.28 | CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE 2. In intentional felony, the act is performed with deliberats intent. In culpable felony, the injury caused is not intentiona] being the result of an act performed without intent. 8. In intentional felony, the accused has intention to cause or inflict an injury to another. In culpable felony, the injury results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA Felonies may be mala in se or mala prohibita. The American concepts thereof were adopted in our jurisdiction. Distinctions between Crimes Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita 1. Crimes mala in se are wrong from their nature. Examples: Homicide, Murder and Rape. Crimes mala prohibita are wrong because they are prohibited by special laws. Examples: a. PD 1866 as amended by RA 8294 (Illegal Possession of Firearms); b. Violation of BP 22 (The Anti-Bouncing Checks Law); Violation of PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice); and ¢. RA9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). 2. In crimes mala in se, intent governs while in crimes mala prohibita, intent is immaterial. Good faith and lack of intent are not valid defenses. 3. Crimes mala in se are penalized under the RPC while ctimes mala prohibita are punished by special laws. 4. The stages of execution affect the penalty imposable in crimes mala in se. Thus, the penalty depends on whether the crime is consummated, frustrated or attempted. The stages of execution are not considered in crimes mala prohibita.Artic 4 ‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 29 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES ART. 4. Criminal Liability, — Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. Byany person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2, By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Under par. 1,a personis: criminally liable for all the consequences of his act, whether foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended, as long as they are the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. Paragraph 1 applies only to intentional felonies. It does not apply to culpable felonies. This submission can be gleaned from the fact that the result of the wrongful act done is different from that originally intended. Article 366 deals with criminal negligence. Requisites of Intentional Feloniss: As discussed in Art. 3, in order that an act may be considered as having been performed or incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must concur: 1. The offender must have freedom while doing an act or omitting to do an act; | 2. The offender must have intelligence while doing an act or omitting to do an act; 3. The offender must have intent while doing the act. Freedom — voluntariness on the part of a person to commit an act or omission. Necessity of freedom When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool. “He is likened to the knife that wounds, or to the torch that sets fire, or to the key that opens a door, or to the ladder that is placed against the wall of a house in committing robbery.” They are all instruments of the crime and are not criminally liable.30 CRIMINAL LAW | BOOK 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The following have no freedom: (a) a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force; and (b) a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. They are exempt from criminal liability under Art.12, pars.5 and 6, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code. Intelligence — the capacity to know and understand the consequences of an act. Necessity of intelligence Intelligence is a necessary factor in determining the morality of a particular act. Thus, without this power no crime can exist. The following are exempt from criminal liability because of the absence of intelligence: (a) Animbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. (Art. 12, [1], RPC) (b) Achild 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. (RA 9344) (c) Child above 15 years but below 18 years of age is also exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment, in which case, he should be subject to the intervening program provided for under RA 9344, = Intent — the purpose to use a particular means to achieve an objective. Necessity of intent Intent to commit an act with malice, being purely 4 ut process, is presumed and the presumption arises from the commission of an unlawful act. Intent ie presumed from the commission of an unlawful act, I is negated by mistake of fact. The presumption does not apply if ht see enot criminal. If there is no intent there is no felony committed by dolo but a felony may still exist if culpa is present. | mentalTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH. an AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES May a crime be committed without intent? Yes, in crimes mala prohibita and in culpable felonies. In crimes mala in se, intent governs but in crimes mala prohibita, the only question is, has the law been violated? When the act itself is illegal, intent is immaterial. i What is mens rea? It is a wrongful criminal intent’ Example: X intends to rob a bank. This is a wrongful criminal intent. A wrongful criminal intent by itself does not make one criminally liable. What is actus rea? It is a wrongful ach, It is an act in furtherance of a wrongful criminal intent. Example: Pursuant to an earlier plan X entered a bank and robbed it and its customers. To incur criminal liability for an intentional felony, mens rea and actus rea must be present. In the foregoing, X is liable for Robbery. Both mens rea and actus rea afe present. Problem: X brought out his gun and cleaned it. He intended to use it in killing Y. He left his gun on top of a table where his young children were playing. In the process, one of them bumped the table and the gun fell. The gun went off and his 10 year old niece was hit who died as a result. Is X liable for an intentional felony? Answer: X is not liable for an intentional felony. It is true that there was a wrongful intent on his part to kill ¥ by using his gun. He did not act pursuant to that intent though. He did not shoot ¥. The crime that resulted was not in furtherance of$2 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE that criminal intent. However, his negligence, that of leaving his gun on top of the table, resulted in the death of his niece, X is therefore liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, a culpable felony. HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT Itis an act or omission which is the result of a misapprehension of facts that is voluntary but not intentional. The actor performs an act which would be lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be. (US us. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488) Requisites: a. The act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. b. In performing the act, the intent of the accused was lawful. c. The mistake was without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith; but mistake of fact can relieve the accused of criminal liability since it means there was no criminal intent accompanying a felonious act. It is an absolutory fact or justifying circumstance. Had the facts in the mind of the accused been true, his action could have been a legitimate defense. Example: Zandro is dashing young man. One night, he went to @ disco bar. While having cocktails, a beautiful lady approached him. The lady introduced herself as Xenia, a college student. In the course of their conversation, Zandro offered her some drinks and she obliged. When the night was deepening, and as Zandro sensed that the girl likes him, he proposed that they go to a more private place. Xenia agreed right away. That night, Zandro had carnal knowledge of Xenia, After two weeks; Zandro got the shock of his life. He received a subpoena from the Prosecutor’s Office that he is being charged of rape. The‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 33 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY - CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES complaint states that Xenia is demented. Under RA 8363, the Anti-Rape Law, which amended Art. 335 (Rape) of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape can be committed if a person shall have carnal relations with a demented. If you were the lawyer of Zandro, what fxs your defense? Why? ' Answer: If I were the lawyer of Zandro, I will invoke the defense of honest mistake of fact. Having carnal relations with someone is not a crime per se. In the case at bar, Zandro had conversations with the lady and she appeared to be coherent. There was no indication at all that she is mentally deficient or demented. The sexual congress between them was consensual. Zandro thought she liked him and that she went with him voluntarily. Had the facts been as Zandro believed them to be, hie act would have been lawful. There was no fault or negligence on his part. Mistake of fact refers to the situation itself, not the identity of the persons involved. If the offender had intent to commit a felonious act but committed a miatake in ascertaining the identity of the victim, the criminal liability is not negatived because the intent is present. It is honest mistake of fact, not merely the identity that will negative criminal liability. (People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257) Ignorance of the law (ignorantia lege neminem excusat) excuses no one. A mistake of fact (ignorantia faci Hi excusat) excuses the actor from criminal liability because ‘a person acting under a mistake of fact does so without criminal intent. This rule on mistake of fact is also applicable to offenses punished by special laws. When Honest Mistake of Fact not applicable 1. When there is mistake in identity (error in personae); 2. When there is negligence on the part of the accused; and 3. When the accused committed a culpable felony. The essence of honest mistake of fact is lack of intent on the part of the accused. Intent is irrelevant in culpable felonies.34 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Whatis the ‘caddis of the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea?” lL means, “the act cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.” Since intent is an essential element of intentional felony, when the accused acted in good faith, there is no crime committed, The maxim applies only to intentional felonies. All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present because “a voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.” MOTIVE What is Motive? Motive is the reason why a person commits an act. It impels him to commit an act for a definite result. Is motive determinant of criminal liability? Motive is not an element of a crime. It is immaterial in the commission of aj felony. Hence, it is not determinant of criminal liability. It is intent that is material. It is intent that determines whether a person is criminally liable for a felony. Motive alone will not make one criminally liable because under the RPC, there must be an overt act of execution. No matter how wrongful a criminal thought or plan is, as long as there are no overt acts, there is no crime committed. Motive and Intent distinguished: 1. Motive is the impelling reason which moves a person to commit an act while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to achieve a desired result. Example: Revenge is the motive. Stabbing the victim was chosen a8 the means to kill him. 2. Motive is not an element of a crime. Intent is an element of @ crimeTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 38 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES When Is motive material or Important? Motive becomes material or important when: 1. The act brings about variant crimes. Example: X, a law student of the University of the East boxed Y, a law professor. Is X liable for Direct Assault Upon A Person in Authority? Why? If not, why? Explain. Answer: It depends. If ¥ was assaulted while engaged in the performance of his duties or by reason of past performance of his duties, then the crime is Direct Assault upon a Person in authority. If not, then the crime is Physical Injuries. Motive here is important to determine criminal liability because the act of boxing Y gives rise to variant offenses. 2. When the perpetrator has not been positively identi- fied as when nobody witnessed the commission of the offense. (People us. Balinas, 202 SCRA 516; People vs. Brioso, 155 SCRA 463) Example: A COMELEC Registrar was ambushed and killed on his way to the municipal hall. Nobody saw the incident and the identity of the perpetrator is unknown. In this case, motive becomes important to determine the perpetrator of the crime. It has been held that where the identity of the assailant is known, motive becomes irrelevant and when it is supported with sufficient evidence for a conclusion of guilt, conviction is sustainable. (People us. Perante, 143 SCRA 56; Peo us. Beltran, 137 SCRA 508) 3. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental; 4. To determine the specific nature of the crime; and Where the accused claims self-defense.36 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE | CRIMINAL LIABILITY Who may incur criminal liability? (Art. 4, par. 1) Criminal liability shall be incurred: Mode No. 1: (1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Mode No. 2: (2) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Impossible Crime) Mode No. 1 “Bl que de la cause es causa del mal causado.” He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. Note: Art. 4, par. 1 applies only to intentional felonies. It does not apply to culpable felonies. Under paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing an intentional felony is criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. This is true whether the result is foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. He is liable for all the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. This mode presupposes two (2) wrongful acts committed by the accused: (a) the one intended to be committed; and (b) the one actually committed. WHEN THE WRONGFUL ACT DONE BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED 1, BRROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in the identity of the victim. How does it affect criminal liability and the penalty imposable?‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH a7 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES In error in personae, the offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the intended victim. The penalty imposable in error in personae is the penalty maximum period. prescribed for the offense which has a a penalty in its Example: A intended to kill B. One night, A shouted at the person whom he thought to be B. An altercation ensued. In the process, A fired his gun at the person who died as a consequence. It turned out that the person he shot and killed was not B but his own father. A is liable for Parricide, the crime which was actually committed. When A fired his gun, he acted with intent. He is liable for all the direct, logical and natural consequences of his felonious act, whether foreseen or unforeseen, intended or unintended. The fact that the victim is different from the one A intended to kill does net exculpate him from criminal liability. Mistake in the identity of the victim carries with it the same depravity as when the intended victim is the one killed. Applying Art. 49, the penalty imposable is not the penalty for Parricide which was the one committed but the penalty _ for Homicide which is the crime intended to be committed, the penalty being lesser than the penalty for Parricide which was actually committed. But the penalty for Homicide which is Reclusion Temporal shall be imposed in its maximum period. | THE TRANSFERRED INTENT RULE The transferred intent rule applies in error in personae. It results when the actual victim turns out to be different from the intended victim. The intent to kill or the intent to cause an injury is deemed transferred to the actual victim. 2. ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another. The offender is still liable although the one he injured or killed is another person because it resulted from his felonious act.CRIMINAL LAW ® BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE How does It ws criminal liability and the penalty imposable? Inaberratio ictus, three (3) persons are involved: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim. The act may result in two (2) or more felonies. But considering that a single act was performed, the accused is liable for a complex crime. alty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its Th cap. to Art. 48 of the RPC. maximum period pursuant Example: Awith intent to kill, hacked B. B was not hit but C who was behind B was hit. C died. A is liable for his attempt to kill B. Ais also liable for the death of C, The death of C is a natural consequence of the felonious act of A. The transferred intent rule is also applicable, that is, the intent to kill B was transferred to C. But considering the fact that A performed a single act, A is liable for the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The penalty for the graver offense of Homicide which is Reclusion Temporal must be imposed in its maximum period. May treachery be appreciated in aberratio ictus? Yes. If the accused fires upon his intended victim with treachery _but misses and kills another person, treachery can be appreciated. ‘The actual victim is also helpless and is not in a position to defend himself. The death of the victim is Murder not Homicide because of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. 3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM or lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. (Art.13 [3] RPC) How does it affect criminal Ilability and the penalty imposable? Praeter intentionem takes place when the result of the felonious act is graver than what was intended. It is a mitigating circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony actually ecranitted but the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period. Example: A boxed B with the intention of inflicting a lump on B. A8 a result of the blow, B lost his balance and fell the ground‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 39 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES with his head hitting the pavement causing his death. A is liable for Homicide. The law provides that he is liable even if the result of his felonious act is greater than that intended by him. The penalty imposable is Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period. Requisites of Criminal Liability under (Mode No.1) Art. 4, (par.) 1, of the RPC. In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, the following must be present: (1) An intentional felony has been committed; If the act of the accused is lawful (he is not committing a felony) this mode is not applicable. (2.) Example: X attacked Y with a bolo. He hacked Y several times and the latter retreated until such time that he had nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Thereupon, ¥ drew his gun and fired at X who persisted in his attack. Y missed X and hit a bystander who died as a result. Y is not liable for the death of the bystander. His act of shooting X in self defense is lawful. He was not committing a felony. The death of the bystander is accidental under Art.12, par. 4. But if Y fired his gun in self defense but indiscriminately and hit an innocent bystander killing him in the process, Y committed a culpable felony. Thus, even if the act of the accused is lawful but committed with negligence, there is criminal liability, not for an intentional felony but for a culpable felony. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender. Problem: X with intent to injure threw a stone at Y. The latter was able to dodge and was not hit by the stone. Z who was then standing beside Y¥ was hit, Z suffered cerebral fractureCRIMINAL LAW ° \K I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE id hospitalized for more than 30 days. The Prosecutor's Office filed tae of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries against X. Is the charge correct? Answer: No, the charge is not correct. When X threw the stone at Y, he acted with criminal intent. Under Art. 4 par. 1 of the RPC, a person committing an intentional felony is criminally liable although the result of his felonious act be different from that which he intended. X committed an intentional felony and not a culpable felony which the Prosecutor's Office filed. In simple words, the felony committed is determined by the act committed by the accused, whether intentional or culpable. Note: If he acted with intent, he is liable for an intentional felony regardless of the result of his felonious act. If he acted with negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, he is liable for a culpable felony. What is proximate cause? That cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Death is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical Injuries inflicted: 1. when the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was strong and in normal health; 2, when the death occurred within a reasonable time from the assault; 3. when death is expected from the nature and location of the wound. eee committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting (1) When there is an active force that inte i rvened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active forceTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY ee “ CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; | Example: A boxed B. B fell on the ground. An oncoming car bumped B which caused his death. A is not liable for the death of B because there was an efficient intervening cause, the car that bumped B. The boxing of B by A was not the proximate cause of the death of the victim. At most, A is liable for Physical Injuries. (2) When the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim. Example: A stabbed B and inflicted injuries upon the latter. B was hospitalized. Finding boredom in the hospital, B removed his dextrose and went home. F later went to a dirty ditch to catch fish. As a result, his wound developed infection which caused his death. A, under the circumstances, is not liable for the death of B. His death waz due to his own intentional act. Mode No. 2 IMPOSSIBLE CRIME An act which would be an offense against persons or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Par. 2 Art. 4) Why are impossible crimes punishable? The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of the criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor. Such person is a potential criminal. The society must be protected from the morbid type of man called “socially dangerous person.” Society is not safe as long as a man of his kind roams its streets and be a constant danger to its inhabitants. Requisites of an Impossible Crime: 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.42 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The crimes against persons are: Parricide (Art. 246) Murdbr (Art, 248) Homicide (Art. 249) Infanticide (Art. 255) Abortion (Arts, 256, 257, 268 and 259) Duel (Arts. 260 and 261) Physical Injuries (Arts.262, 263, 264, 265, and 266) Rape (Arts. 266-A, B, C, and D) The crimes against property are: Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 300, 302 and 303) Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307) Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 3110) Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313) Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314) Swindling (Estafa) and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and 318) g. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319) h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325 and 326) i, Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and 331) PR me ae oP a a That the act was done with evil intent. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. 4, That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code. INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT Factual or physical impossibility — It occura when extra- neous circumstances unknown to the perpetrator prevent the com- mission of the intended crime.‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 43 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES | Examples of an Impossible Crime where the act performed by the offender would have been an offense against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. 1, Stabbing a person who is lying on bed, the offender having the intent to kill him and thinking that he was only sleeping, when in fact that person had already been dead before he stabbed him. The act performed by the offender would have been murder, an offense against persons, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, it being impossible to kill a person who is already dead. He must be punished because he is a potential criminal. He has a criminal tendency. If the offender knew that his would be victim was already dead when he stabbed him, he is not liable for an impossible crime because his mind was not criminal. He knew that he cannot inflict any injury anymore to a dead person. 2. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is already dead but the offender thought that she was alive. Rape cannot be committed against a dead| woman. Rape is now a crime against persons under RA 8353. It is no longer a crime against chastity that it used to be under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, there is now an impossible crime of Rape. Examples of an Impossible Crime where the act performed by the offender would have been an offense against property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, (1) Picking the pocket of another which turns out to be empty. The offender would have been liable for theft, an offense against property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, since theft cannot be committed when there is no personal property that could be taken; (2) Knowing the combination of the safety deposit box of his office, X stayed behind with the intention of stealing the money contained therein. When nobody was already around, he opened the safety deposit box only to find out that it is empty of cash. X is liable for an impossible crime.CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE The crime of Theft was impossible of accomplishment, There was nothing to be stolen. Le impossibility —It occurs when an essential element of acrime an present during its commission making it impossible of accomplishment. Example: (1) A surreptitiously took a watch from the possession of another which turned out to be the same watch he owns but lost 2 weeks earlier. An essential element of Theft is that the offender must take a personal property belonging to another. This element is absent. A cannot be a Thief of his own property. However, he may be held liable for Impossible Crime. Problems: (a.) Suppose A with intent to take the watch of B who was then leaning on a trunk of a tree in Sunshine Park stabbed the latter and then took his watch. It turned out that B had been dead hours before. What crime or crimes did A commit? Answer: A would have been liable for a complex crime of Robbery with Homicide if B were alive before he stabbed him. But that could not be because it turned out that B was already dead before A stabbed him, Seemingly, he is liable for an impossible crime because there is an inherent impossibility of killing B because he was already dead before the assault. He could not be liable for an impossible crime of Homicide although his mind was criminal because he also committed another crime which is Theft, Impossible crime can be committed if no other crime is committed in the process. Thus, he is liable for Theft. , (b) Apicked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B's wallet. Once in possession of the wallet, A opened it, but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is A guilty of an impossible crime? Answer: No, because the wallet has some value and the crime of theft is consummated from the moment the offender has takenTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 45 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES possession of the wallet with intent to gain. thee that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime, but of theft. Note: In impossible crime, the act performed should not constitute another offense specifically punished by law particularly afelony against personsor property. The moment another crime is committed there can be no impossible crime. The offender is liable for that crime which was committed in the process. INTOD VS. COURT OF APPEALS 215 SCRA 52 Facts: Four (4) culprits armed with firearms and with intent to kill X went to the house of the latter, After having pinpointed X’s room, all four fired their gune and riddled the house with bullets. It so happened that X did not come home that night. The accused were prosecuted and convicted for At smpted Murder. On appeal, the SC modified the decision. Itheld the petitioners liable for an Impossible Crime. rs Query: Is the SC ruling accurate? Is it not that imposable crime could arise only ifthe wrongful act which would have constituted a crime against persons or property did not constitute another felony? Answer: It is respectfully submitted that the Supreme Court erroneously applied paragraph (2) of Art. 4. ‘This is not the law applicable. Inasmuch as another crime was committed, the law applicable is Art. 4 paragraph (1). The accused are liable for the crime that resulted from their felonious act. ‘The accused intended to commit Murder. However, the crime was not committed because X did not go home that night. ‘There was an inherent impossibility of committing the crime of Murder because X was not at home. The wrongful act of the accused in firing their guns at the house of however constituted or regulted to another offense that is, the destruction ofCRIMINAL LAW > BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE house of X. Destroying somebody's property because of ete, anger or other evil motive is Malicious Mischief, Considering that another crime other than the crime intended was thus committed, then the accused are liable for that offense. Hence, Malicious Mischief, not Impossible Crime was committed. (c.) Example of an impossible crime against persons where the means employed is inadequate. With intent to kill, X put poison in the coffee of Y, Unsuspecting, Y drank all the contents of the coffee. The coffee laced with poison had no effect upon Y because the quantity of the poison put in the coffee was too small. X is liable for an impossible crime. It is not Attempted Murder because the crime was inherently impossible of accomplishment. (d.) Example of an impossible crime against persons where the means employed is ineffectual. Believing that certain white powder was arsenic or poison, A mixed it with the coffee intended for B. When B drank it, he was not injured at all because the white powder turned out to be sugar. He is liable for an impossible crime. What is the penalty for impossible crime? The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos. (Art. 59, RPC) What factors must be considered by the court in determining the proper penalty for Impossible crime? ‘The factors that must be considered by the court in determining the proper penalty are: (1) the social danger and (2) the degree of criminality shown by the offender. (Art. 59, RPC) There Is no attempted or frustrated Impossible crime, vm stages of execution of felony under Art. 6, RPC do not apply. 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TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 47 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES punishable by law, it shall render the proppr decisiou, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Departinent of Justice, the reason which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. In the same way, the Court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. Dura lex sed lex. The law mey be harsh but that is the law. ‘The judiciary can do nothing but apply it, even in cases where doing such would seem to result in grave injustice. The only recourse is for the court to recommend legislative action or executive action and hope that the proper departments act promptly and accordingly. What Is the duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law? Whenever a court has knowledge of any act Tien 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. (Art. 5, 1st paragraph, RPC) What Is the duty of the court in cases of excessive penalties? Whenever the court finds that a strict enforcement of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense, the 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. (Art. 5, 2nd paragraph, RPC) ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted are punishable, a - cw bare48 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. (Art. 6, 1st paragraph, RPC) Stages of development of a crime: ‘A. Internal Acts — exist in the mind and are not punishable. Examples: plan to rob, kill and rape B, External Acts 1. Preparatory Acts 2. Acts of execution Preparatory acts are those initial acts of a person who has conceived the idea of committing a crime, but which cannot by themselves logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. They are not even overt acta and hence, they do not constitute the attempted stage of the acts of execution. Examples of preparatory acts are: a. Buying or obtaining an instrument to commit murder, homicide, robbery, or abortion b. Preparing false vouchers and receipts Are preparatory acts punishable? Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable because the law regards them as innocent or at least permissible, except in rare and exceptional cases when the law makes the preparatory act punishable and provides a corresponding penalty, The following preparatory acts are punishable: 1. Conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion and sedition: 2. Proposal to commit treason and rebellion; and Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as independent crimes like the following: 8) Possession of picklocks which is preparatory to the commission of robbery with force upon things; b) Possession of unlicensed firearm,‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 49 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES ‘The above-mentioned acts are punished by Inw not as prepara- tory acts but as distinct crimes i.e., possession of picklocks defined and punished under Art. 304 of the Revised Penal Code and ille- gal possession of firearm defined and punished under P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294, Acts of Execution a. Directly connected to the intended crime. b. Is punishable under the Revised Penal Code. c. Usually overt act with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense. ‘The external acts must have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed by the offender. What is an indeterminats offense? It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous. The accused may be convicted for a felony defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistance. Example: X intends to kill ¥ by means of poisoning. X buys a poison in a drug store. Ie X criminally liable? Answer: No, X is not criminally liable. The mere act of buying a poison does not constitute an overt act. It is only a preparatory act which has no direct connection to the crime intended to be committed. The act is susceptible to many interpretations. Mens rea (wrongful criminal intent) alone will not make one incur criminal liability. The three stages of execution of a felony: 1. Attempted 2. Frustrated 3. Consummated50 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts ofe: tion which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. A felony is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a reault but nevertheless does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. The stages of commission do not apply to the following: a. Offenses punished by special laws (unless the special law specifically provides otherwise). b. Formal Crimes — Consummated by a single act (slander, adultery, etc.) c. Impossible Crimes — As these crimes cannot even be consummated d. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors) e. Felonies by omission Crimes committed by mere agreement (betting in sports, corruption of public officers) ‘Two Phases of Felony: 1. Subjective Phase 2. Objective Phase Subjective Phase — It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has still control over his acts, including their natural course. Ifin between these two points, the offender is stopped by reason of a cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is only in the attempted ge.FOS VT STAT RTS a TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 61 ‘AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES Objective Phase — It is that portion of the acts of the offender, where he has no more control over the same. All the acts of execution have been performed by him. He is now in the waiting stage. ATTEMPTED FELONY A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6, 3rd paragraph, RPC) Attempted stage is the beginning of the subjective phase. What is an overt act? An overt act is physical activity or deed, indicating an intention to commit a particular crims, mora than a mere planning or preperation, which if carried te its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into a concrete offense. | | In what stage of the acts of execution is it important to determine the existence of the overt act? The existence of the overt act is important only in the attempted stage of the acts of execution. It is not necessary to determine the existence of overt act in the other stages of execution, because in frustrated stage, as well as in the consummated stage of execution, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which necessarily implies that the offender has done more than an overt act. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY: 1. _ the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acta; he does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; the offender’s act be not stopped b: taneous the offender pped by his own spon: |CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE the non-performance of all the acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desiatance, (People vs. Lizada, 396 SCRA 62) To be an attempted crime, the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compelg him to atop prior to the moment when he has performed all the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which act it is his intention to perform. (People vs. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424) Note: In crimes involving violence and there is intent to kill, the offender does not perform all the acts of execution if he does not inflict a mortal wound. The crime is only in the attempted stage. ILLUSTRATIONS OF ATTEMPTED FELONY: A with intent to kill hacked B but missed hitting him. Is A criminally liable? If so, for what crime? Answer: Yes, A is criminally liable for Attempted Homicide. By hacking B with intent to kill A commenced the execution of the crime directly by overt acts. It is only in the attempted stage because A did not perform all the acts of execution by not inflicting a mortal or serious wound. A with intent to kill hacked B, B was hit and suffered a small cut on the arm that required medical attendance or incapacity for labor for 4 days. What crime did A commit? Answer: A committed Attempted Homicide. By hacking B with intent to kill A commenced the execution of the crime di by overt acts. It is only in the attempted stage because A did not perform all the acts of execution by not inflicting a mortal or serious wound. A with intent to kill attacked B from behind. He stabbed B who was then seated on a chair. The point of the knife land at the back of the chair. B was not wounded. What crime did A commitTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 53 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES Answer: A committed Attempted Murder. The crime that he intended to commit was Murder because of the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. It is only in the attempted stage because by not inflicting a mortal or serious wound, A was not able to perform all the acts of execution that would produce the crime of Murder. The back of the chair was the cause or accident that prevented him from performing all the acts of execution. Note: Plain and simple killing is Homicide. If the killing is attended by any qualifying aggravating circumstance under * Art. 248 of the RPC (like treachery), the killing is catapulted or elevated to a higher category of crime and is given a proper name — Murder. 4. What if, in the immediately preceding problem, the point of the knife found its wey at the beck of B wounding him in the process. B was medically atten: or incapacitated for labor for 4 days. Will your answer be the same? Answer: | Yes, my answer will be the same. A is still liable for Attempted Murder because by not inflicting a mortal or serious wound, he was not able to perform all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a result. A boxed and kicked B and inflicted physical injuries upon the latter. The injuries required medical attendance for 4 to 5 days. What crime did A commit? Answer: A committed the crime of Slight Physical Injuries, This is 80 because there was no intent to kill on the part of A. Under the law, if the injury requires medical attendance or incapacitates the offended party for labor from one (1) to (9) nine days, the crime committed is Slight Physical Injuries. If the period is from 10 to 30 days, it is Serious Physical Injuries. If it exceeds 30 days, it is Serious Physical Injuries. (Arts. 266, 265 and 263, RPC)54 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE STAGES OF EXECUTION IN RAPE RA 8858 provides that mere skin to skin contact between, the penis and|the labia now consummates the crime of Rape, RA 8958 had amended the Rape law under Art. 335 of the Revise Penal Code. “Mere bombardment of the castle of orgasmic potency or mere strafing of the citadel of passion is only Attempted Rape. But mere bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops did not succeed in entering the castle.” (People vs. Campuhan, 329, SCRA 270) What constitutes attempted rape? Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confirmed buthas progressed to the oft quoted “touching of the. female organ” into being described as “the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendumm,” or “the bombardment of the drawbridge...” But to our mind, the case at bar merely constitutes a “shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency” or as earlier stated a “strafing of the citadel of passion” 1. “Mere shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency or mere strafing of the citadel of passion is only attempted rape. But bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops did not succeed in entering the castle.” (People us. Campuhan, supra.) Thus, in the case of People vs. Campuhan, the Supreme Court explained in no uncertain terms that while entry of the penis into the lips of the female organ is synonymous with mere touching of the external genitals, eg., labia majora, labia minora, etc., the crucial doctrinal bottom line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in the light of, in relation to, or as an essential part of the process of penile penetration and not just mere touching in the ordinary sense. In the same case, the Supreme Court went on to say: “The instant case lurks at the threshold of another emasculation of the stages of execution of rape by considering almost every attempt at sexual violation ofTITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 66 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES a woman as consummated rape, that is, if the contrary view were to be adopted. The danger is that the concept may send a wrong signal to every roaming lothario, whenever the opportunity bares itself, to better intrude with climactic gusto, sans any restraint, since alVany attempted fornification would be considered consummated rape and punished as such. A mere strafing of the citadel of passion would then be a deadly fait accompli, which is absurd...” 2. It is well settled that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge. (People vs, Dalisay, 408 SCRA 375) 3. Mere contact by the male’s sex organ of the labia consummates rape. (People vs. Neguic, 412 SCRA 628) But mere epidermal contact or peripheral contact with the female’s sex organ is only attempted rape. 4, There is no crime of ed rape. (People us. Erinia, 50 Phil. 998). EFFECT OF SPONTANEOUS conernce BEFORE THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION The spontaneous desistance of the offender is exculpatory only if made during the attempted stage and provided further that the acts already committed do not constitute an offense. : In attempted felony, If the offender spontaneously desists before performing all the acts of execution, he is not liable for attempted felony. Desistance — is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law allows a person to desist from committing crime. Mustrations: 1. A with intent to kill stabbed B, B was not hit. When A was about to stab B again, A changed his mind and left. Is A liable for Attempted Homicide?CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Answer: No. A is not liable for Attempted Homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal wound because of his own spontaneoug desistance, Under the law, there is an attempted felony when the offender does not perform all the acts of execution because he was prevented from doing so by causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Awith intent to kill stabbed B and inflicted a slight injury upon him. When A was about to stab B again, the latter pleaded for mercy that A spares his life. A took pity upon B and voluntarily desisted from further attacking B. He walked away and left B, Is A liable for Attempted Homicide? Answer: No. Ais not liable for Attempted Homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal wound because of his own spontaneous desistance. Under the law, there is an attempted felony when the offender does not perform all the acts of execution because he was prevented from doing so by causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In the case at bar, A spontaneously desisted before inflicting a mortal wound. He is not therefore liable for Attempted Homicide. This is a reward given by law to an offender whose one foot has stepped on the path of lawlessness when he started the commission of & felony directly by overt acts by stabbing the victim but who stepped back on the path of righteousness by voluntarily desisting before he could perform all the acts of execution, ___ However, when A desisted, he had already inflicted # light injury upon B. He is liable for that but not for Attempted Homie as above mentioned. At most, A is liable for Physica! But if A had already inflicted a mortal wound when he desisted and B did not die due to causes independent of the wil of A then he is Hable for Frustrated Homicide. This is °° because by inflicting a mortal wound he had already performed all Gis acts of execution which would produce the felony #9 *‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 67 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES FRUSTRATED FELONY | When is a felony frustrated? A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6, 2nd paragraph, RPC) Frustrated stage is the start of the objective phase. If the crime is not committed, it is by reason of causes inde- pendent of the will of the accused. Elements of Frustrated Felony i. 2. The offender performs all the acts of execution; All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; The felony is not produced; By reason of causes independent of the wit of the perpetra- tor. | ILLUSTRATIONS OF FRUSTRATED FELONY: A with intent to kill stabbed B. B was mortally wounded. He was rushed to the hospital where he was operated on and was saved by timely medical intervention. What crime did A commit? Answer: A committed Frustrated Homicide. This is so because by inflicting a mortal or serious wound, A was able to perform all the acts of execution. The crime of Homicide was not committed because of timely medical intervention, a cause independent of the will of A. A stabbed B repeatedly from behind. B had no inkling whatsoever that he will be attacked by A. B suffered serious or mortal wounds. The doctors saved him from death. What crime did A commit?CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Answer: ‘A committed Frustrated Murder. This is 60 because he stabbed B with treachery and was able to inflict mortal o, serious wounds that would have caused the death of B had it not been: for the doctors who saved him. The medical attendance was a cause independent of the will of A. Problem: ‘Astabbed B with treachery and inflicted a mortal wound, When B was bleeding profusely, he pleaded to A to bring him to the hospital. A took pity upon B and rushed him to the hospital. Is A liable for Frustrated Murder? If so, why? Explain. If not, then what is ke liable for? Answer: Ais not liable for Frustrated Murder. Under the law, frustrated felony is committed if the victim does not die due to causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In the instant case, B did not die because A brought him to the hospital, @ cause dependent of the will of A. ‘At most, A is liable for Serious Physical Injuries. Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage: The following are crimes which by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot perform all the acts of execution: 1. Rape since skin to skin contact of the penis and the drawbridge consummates rape, (RA 8353 which amended Art. $35 of the RPC) Indirect Bribery because it is consummated by mere accepting gifte offered to the public officer by reason of his office. (Art. 211) Corruption of Public Officials because when the offer is accepted the felony is consummated, When the offer is rejected, felony is merely attempted. (Art. 212) Adultery and Concubinage because the essence of the carnal knowledge. (Arts. 333 and 334) crime i8‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 69 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES Frustrated Felony Distinguished from Attempted Felony 1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. 2. _ Infrustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony while in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution. In other words, in frustrated felony, the offender has reached the objective phase; in attempted felony, the offender has not passed the subjective phase. SIMPLIFICATION OF ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED STAGES OF EXECUTION In crimes involving violencs, if the offender does not inflict a mortal or serious wound, he dose mot perform all the acts of execution. Consequently, he is liable for Attempted felony. However, there must be intent to kill on his part. If none, the crime may only be physical injuries. If the offender inflicts a mortal or serious wound but the victim does not die due to causes independent of the will of the offender, he is liable for Frustrated felony. THE FOUR WAY TEST: 1. A with intent to kill fired his gun at B. The gun jammed, it did not fire. Ie A liable? If so, for what felony? Answer: Ais liable for Attempted Homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal wound upon B. Under the contemplation of law, if the offender does not inflict a mortal wound, he does not perform all the acts of execution. The jamming of the gun was the cause or accident that prevented A from Performing all the acts of execution, |CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE ‘Awith intent to kill fired his gun at B. The gun fired but B way not hit. What felony is A liable if any? Answer: Ais liable for Attempted Homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal wound upon B. Under the contemplation of law, if the offender does not inflict a mortal wound, he does not perform all the acts of execution. The fact that A missed hitting B was the cause that prevented A from performing all the acts of execution. ‘A with intent to kill fired his gun at B. B was grezed in the shoulder. Is A liable? If so, for what felony Why? Explain, Answer: Ais liable for Attempted Homicide. A was not able to inflict a mortal wound. Under the contemplation of law, if the offender does not inflict a mortal wound, he does not perform all the acts of execution. In the case at bar, the injury inflicted was slight. A with intent to kill fired his gun at B. B was hit and was seriously wounded. B was saved by the doctor. Is A liable? If so, for what felony? Why? Explain. Answer: Ais liable for Frustrated Homicide. Having inflicted a mortal wound on B, A had performed all the acts of execution. B did not die because of a cause independent the will of A, that is, by medical intervention. Problem: “If you marry for the good reasons, a thousand flowers will bloom. But it you marry for flawed reaso™ you may end up living a life in perpetual agony...” Johnny married Susan for flawed reasons. He became? battered hesband, One day, he decided to end his eufferiog, aoe ee cru hands of his wife Susan. Ho placed poison 8 coffee of his wife, Unsuapecting, Susan drank the coffee srith poison. After a while, the poison started to take its tal Busan started to feel abdominal pains. With soft and 10 voice and perhaps anticipating an impending death, sus?TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 61 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES asked for forgiveness from Johnny. The latter was touched and became remorseful, Johnny realized that he cannot live in this world without his wife. Thereupon, Johnny poured 1 kilo of sugar and 1 liter of water into the mouth of Susan, As a result, Susan kept vomiting until she coughed off the poison inside her. Susan did not die. What crime or crimes is Johnny liable? Why? Explain. Answer: Johnny is not liable for Attempted Parricide. He had performed all the acts of execution, Susan had drunk the coffee laced with poison. Nothing more was left to be done by him. He is now in the objective phase of execution. Johnny is not Hable for frustrated Parricide either. Although Johnny had performed sil the acts of execution, he is not liable for Frustrated Parricide. In the frustrated stage, the offender has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the felony aa result, but which nevertheless is not committed by reason of catece independent of the will of the perpetrator. In the instant case, Susan did not die because of the will of Johnny. It was Johnny himeelf, yo prevented the death of Susan. | At most, Johnny is liable for physical injuries. Attempted Felony/Frustrated Felony Distinguished from Impos- sible Crime oD In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished; in attempted or frustrated felony the evil intent of the offender is possible of accomplishment. In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished or because the means employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual; in attempted or frustrated felony, what prevents the accomplishment is the int: rvention of a certain cause or accident in which the offender had no part or independent of his will. Are there felonies that have no attempted or frustrated stages of execution? If yes what are they? ‘Yes there are felonies that have no attempted and frustrated felonies. They are:CRIMINAL LAW ° BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE (1) Treason. (Art. 114) (2) Felonies by omiasion like misprision of treason (Art.116) (3) Flight to enemy ‘s country (Art. 121) (4) False testimony (Arts. 180- 183) (5) Abuse against chastity (Art. 245) (6) Corruption of minors (Art. 340) (7) Formal crimes, like slander (Art.358) In treason, the overt act itself constitutes the crime. ‘The crime of flight to enemy’s country has no attempted and frustrated stages of execution because in flight to enemy country, the mere attempt to flee to enemy country consummates the crime. ‘The same is true with the crime of corruption of minors (Art. 340). ‘The mere proposal to the minor to satisfy the lust of another consummates the crime. The same rule applies in Abuse against Chastity (Art. 245). The crime is consummated by mere solicitation or making indecent or immoral advances. In formal crimes, there are no attempted and frustrated stages of execution because they are consummated in one instant by a single act. Example: Oral Defamation. It is consummated in an instant, thet is, when the utterances are made. CONSUMMATED FELONY When Is a felony consummated? ____ A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary fof it execution snd accomplishment are present, Every crime has ite wn nts which must all be present to iolation the law, (Art. 6, 2nd paragraph, RPC) phe seoattate'e If the subjective and objectiv. eoutloe are both present, the crime is nies ae The ‘offender hi? performed all the acts of execution and the crime is committed.TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 63 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES ILLUSTRATIONS OF CONSUMMATED FELONY: 1. Aquarreled with B. In the process, A stabbed B. B was mortally wounded and died. What crime is A liable? Answer: A is liable for Homicide, Plain and simple killing is Homicide. Awith intent to kill stabbed B from behind. B died as a result. What crime did A commit? Answer: A committed Murder because he killed B with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. Awith intent to burn the house of B put crumpled newspapers and old clothes in one of the corners of the house and set them on fire. C, a household help put the fire off before it was ablaze. The fire however left s slight discoloration in the wall of the house. What crime cial A conamde? ~ Answer: Acommitted the crime of arson. The slight discoloration of a part of the building consummates argon. A, B and C robbed a Banco de Oro bank. A ordered the cashier at a point of a gun to place the money inside a duffel bag which the cashier did. Thereafter, he handed the duffel bag to A, who placed the same on top of a table. After a while, the responding policemen arrived and A, B and C were arrested. What crime did A, B and C commit? Why? Explain. Answer: A, B and C committed Robbery in its consummated stage. Under the law, taking is complete the moment the offender takes possession of a thing even if it were more or less momentarily. In the instant case, the robbers had taken complete possession of the duffel bag containing money. The only thing that was frustrated which is not an element of robbery is their ability to derive benefit from it.CRIMINAL LAW se BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE are now only two stages of execution in Theft ang sobuers, the Attempted and Consummated stages. Robbe is consummated upon possession of the property. The moment the accused comes in possession of the property even if it were m, or less momentarily, taking is complete. The property doesn’t hays to be taken from the hands of the offender. ‘The Supreme Court said: “It is no defense either that the appellant and his co- accused had no opportunity to dispose of the personalities taken. That fact does not alter the nature of the crime. From the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking is complete. The crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even for a short time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken from the hands of the robber, or that he should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it.” (People us. Beal, 39 Phil. 2d., 504; People us. Salvilla, 184 SCRA 671) IMPORTANT FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE STAGE OF EXECUTION OF FELONY: ‘1. The nature of the offense 2. The elements of the felony 8 Manner of committing the felony To recapitulate: In Homicide/Murder: 1. With intent to kill but no mortal wound is inflicted — attempted. 2. With intent to kill and a mortal is inf ictim does not die — frustrated. —e ‘ 8. With intent to kill and victim dies — \ In Robbery In Robbery, the eri offender gets hold of the thant” consummated. e is consummated the moment thé the thing taken even if it were more or les‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 65 ‘AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES temporarily. It is not necessary that he should carry the property away from the owner or lawful possessor or should have escaped with it. In Rape Mere “skin to skin” contact between the penis and the labia consummates rape. (Fey In Arson ‘The slightest discoloration of a portion of a building consum- mates Arson. ART. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of these committed against persons or property. When are light felonies punishable under the Revised Penal Code? As a general rule, light felonies are pinta only when they have been consummated. | Examples of light felonies which are punishable only when consummated. 1. Betting in sport contest, Arle 2, Tegal cock-fighting, and 3. Intriguing against honor. ‘These light felonies are punishable only when consummated because they are not against persons or property and, hence, they are covered by the general rule. Reason for the rule: Light felonies produce such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty for their consummation. If they are not consummated, the are done is 80 light that there is no need of providing a penalty at all.66 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Is there any exception? Yes, there is. Light felonies committed against Persong property are punishable even if they are only in the attempted ot frustrated stage of execution. Reason for the exception: ‘The commission of felonies against Persons or property Presup. Poses in the offender some moral depravity. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. When is there CONSPIRACY? A conspiracy exists when two or more Persons come to an ®greement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. (Art. 8, 2nd paragraph, RPC) Requisites of Conspiracy 1. That two or more Persons come to an agreement; 2, That the agreement concerns the commission of a felony; and 3. That the execution of the felony is decided upon. CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY Conspiracy is punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefore, (Art, 8, Let paragraph, RPC) nspiracy becomes a felony only if there is a law making Co: it a felony. If there is no law penalizing it, thes there tar ime “Ominitted. It is only a manner of incurring criminal liability.TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 67 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES Examples of Conspiracy as a felony: ‘ 1. Conspiracy to Commit Treason 2, Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion 3. Conspiracy to Commit Insurrection 4, Conspiracy to Commit Arson 5. Conspiracy to Commit Coup d’ etat § Conspiracy to Commit Sedition and lately, f Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism under RA 9372. There is no crime as Conspiracy to Commit a Felony when there is no law punishing it. Inother crimes, like murder, homicide, theft, rape, or abduction, the mere agreement and decision to commit them is not punishable as there is no provision in the RPC which punishes conspiracy to commit a felony. Problem: A and B agreed and decided to kill a municipal mayor. X came to know about the conspiracy to kill the mayor and revealed the same to the authorities. Consequently, A and B were arrested by the police before they could execute the act. Aand B are now charged with Conspiracy to Commit Murder. Will the charge prosper? Answer: No, the charge will not prosper. There is no such crime as Conspiracy to Commit Murder under the Revised Penal Code. What proof Is required for conspiracy? Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused when such acts point to a joint purpose, design, concerted actions and community of interest. The same degree of proof required for establishing a crime is required to support a finding a conspiracy.CRIMINAL LAW 8 BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE What is the doctrine of IMPLIED CONSPIRACY? The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persong participating in the commission of a crime collectively liable as oo. conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent anda common purpose of objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of alk Tt may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offensq was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. (People us. Liad, 355 SCRA 11) There is implied conspiracy if it is proven that two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object each doing e part so that their acts although apparently independent. are in fact connected and cooperative indicating a unity of purpose. What proof Is required for conspiracy? Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary as it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design. (People vs. Gonzales- Flores, 356 SCRA 460) Where there is no direct proof of conspiracy between the accused, and where an implied conspiracy is sought to be proved by an evaluation of the conduct of accused-appellant before, during, and after the commission of the crime, accused-appellant’s acts of filing Estafa charges against his supposed co-conspirator, and his actively seeking her arrest and participating in the operations that led to her arrest, cast doubt on the prosecution's theory of implied conspiracy. (People vs. De Leon, 350 SCRA 11) Discuss the concept: “THE ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL.” When conspiracy is established all who participated thereiD irrespective of the quantity and quality of their participation ar¢ liable equally, whether conspiracy is planned or instantaneous. The criminal liability of one is the same as the criminal liability of one of the others, unless one or some of the conspirators commit!‘TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH 69 AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY (CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES another crime which is not part of the intendefl crime. (People us. Valdez, 159 SCRA 366) i Example: A, B and C agreed and decided to kill X. A acted as the driver. B was the look out. C stabbed X to death. All of them are equally liable for the death of X. The act of C in stabbing X to death is also deemed the act of A and B. ‘When there is no conspiracy, each of the offenders is liable only for the act he executed. (People vs. Castillo, 193, Phil, 168) Distinguish conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal lability: As a rule, conspiracy is not 2 felony. Conspiracy becomes a felony only when the law especially provides a penalty therefore. In such case, the mere agreement and decision to commit a particular felony becomes punishable. Thus, conspiracy to commit treason, rebellion, insurrection, coup d’ efot, arzon, sedition and terrorism is punishable. However, if after the conspiracy the loffenders actually committed for instance, rebellion, they are liable for rebellion, and the conspiracy ceases to be a felony and becomes only a manner of incurring criminal liability, that is, the act of one conspirator is the act of all the other conspirators. General rule: When the conspiracy is established, all who participated therein regardless of their participation are equally liable. Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed another crime which is not a part of the crime intended. Example: Aand B agreed and decided tocommit Robbery in the house of X. In the process, B committed rape on one of the occupants without the knowledge of A. B is liable for the complex crime of Robbery with Rape. A is only liable for Robbery because the crime of rape was not a part of the conspiracy. But if A saw B committing the crime of rape and did nothing to prevent the latter, A is also liable for Robbery with70 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE Rape because he was aware of the act committed by B ang he did nothing to prevent him. ESSENCE OF CONSPIRACY ILLUSTRATIVE CASES: Conspiracy has been called “the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery.” (People vs. Pagalasan, 404 SCRA 275) The essence of conspiracy is community of criminal intent. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the criminal act, or it may be in the form of moral assistance such as the exertion of moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to implement the conspiracy. (People us. Tilos, 349 SCRA) Although as a rule, conspiracy is not a crime, the existence of a conspiracy is decisive in determining whether two or more persons who participated in the commission of ffense are liable as co-principals or accomplices or are exempt from criminal liability. (People Hilario, 354 SCRA 354) The agreement to commit the crime is, more frequently than not, made by malefactors, not within a considerable interval preceding the commission of the act, but close to, or contemporaneous with the actual commission thereof, when by their collective acts, it becomes implicit that they have spontaneously agreed to decide to commit the felony. (People vs. Biong, 372 SCRA 34) In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually committed all the elements of the crime charged — what is important is that all of them performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakable common purpose or design to commit the crime. (People vs. Caraang, 418 SCRA 321) Conspiracy is present when one concurs with the criminal design of another, indicated by the performance of an overt act leading to the crime committed. (People vs. Garcia, Jr. 400 SCRA 229) The concerted acts of appellant and his co-accused manifestly disclose concurrence of wills, unity of action, joint purpose and common design, (People us. Tuppal, 396 SCRA 72)TITLE ONE — FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH n AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CHAPTER ONE — FELONIES HOW CONSPIRACY IS PRO’ F IN Jurisprudence is replete that conspiracy must be proved as clearly as the commission of the offense itself. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself — like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Gregorio, 412 SCRA 90; People vs. Hugo, 410 SCRA 62) Conspiracy must be proven by evidence other than the testimony of a conspirator. (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90) Conspiracy need not to be shown by direct proof of an ment of the parties to commit the crime. (People vs. Herida, 353 SCRA 650) Conspiracy must be: shown toexist by director circumstantial evidence as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. (People us. Esponilla, 404 SCRA 421) Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, & concerted action, ard a community of interest. (People us. Caraig, 400 SCRA 67) ‘Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. (People vs. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528) WHO ARE LIABLE WHEN THERE IS CONSPIRACY . Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in the contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all. (People vs. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424) In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim, The act of each conspirator inCRIMINAL LAW " BOOK I OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE furtherance of the common purpose in the contemplation of law the act of all. (People us. Givera, 349 SCRA 513) i Where the jacta of the accused collectively and individ ually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards te accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evide and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. (People vs, Reyes, 399 SCRA 528) Every person who signs or initials document in the course of transit through standard operating procedures does not automatically become a conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he had no participation. (Albert us. Gangan, 353 SCRA 650) In determining the existence of conspiracy, it is not to show that all conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to bring about the death of the victim. (People vs. Amazan, 349 SCRA 281) When several accused are charged they can be held equally guilty regardless of their degree of participation in the offense only when their very cooperation added to its strength, emboldened the actual killer, or contributed to the success of the common design. (People vs. Melencion, 355 SCRA 113) Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose — conspiracy transcends companionship. (People us, Patano, 399 SCRA 90) The sea of suspicion has no shore, and the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass. Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan or acquiescence thereto is not a sufficient ground to hold # person liable as a conspirator. (People us. Samudio, 358 SCRA 745: People us. Gonzales, 357 SCRA 460) ‘The presence of the accused at the acene of the crime, without more, is inadequate to support the conclusion that he conspired with the assailants. (People vs, Dindo, 349 SCRA 492) The mere fact that the gunman arrived and left the crim? Scene together with the accused persons does not automatically