The Revised Penal Code BOOK 1 Luis B. Reyes

CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law, defined.

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment. (12 Cyc.
129)
Crime, defined.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it. (I Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, Rawle's Third Revision, 729)
Sources of Philippine Criminal Law.
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amend-
ments.
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature,
National As- sembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa
.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law.
No common law crimes in the Philippines.
The so-called common law crimes, known in the United States and England as the body of principles, usages
and rules of action, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will
of the legislature, are not recognized in this country. Unless there be a particular provision in the penal code
or special penal law that defines and punishes the act, even if it be socially or morally wrong, no criminal
liability is incurred by its commission. (See U.S. vs. Taylor, 28 Phil. 599, 604)
Court decisions are not sources of criminal law, because they merely explain the meaning of, and apply, the
law as enacted by the legislative branch of the government.
l
)
The first limitation prohibits the passage of retroactive laws which are prejudicial to the accused.
An ex post facto law is one which:
(1)
Power to define and punish crimes.
The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of
criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and
denning
criminal offenses. (People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124)
The right of prosecution and punishment for a crime is one of the attributes that by a natural law belongs to
the sovereign power instinctively charged by the common will of the members of society to look after, guard
and defend the interests of the community, the individual and social rights and the liberties of every citizen
and the guaranty of the exercise of his rights. (U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94, 100)
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation.
The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following limitations:
1.
makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(3)
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
Sec. 22)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Art. Ill,
o ex
post N
facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. Ill,
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL Limitations to Enact Criminal Legislation
2
Sec. 14[1]
CRIMINAL LAW
IN GENERAL Constitutional Rights of the Accused
(5) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc.,
35 SCRA 429, 431)
Congress is also prohibited from passing an act which would inflict punishment without judicial trial, for that
would constitute a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. (People vs. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382, 395)
Example:
Congress passes a law which authorizes the arrest and imprisonment of communists without the benefit of a
judicial trial.
To give a law retroactive application to the prejudice of the accused is to make it an ex post
facto law.
The penalty of prision
mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only
to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks committed on or after October 22, 1985. That increased
penalty does not apply to estafa committed on October 16, 1974 because it would make the decree an ex post
facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by Articles 21 and 22 of the Revised Penal Code and
Section 12, Article IV (now Sec. 22, Art. HI,
of the 1987 Constitution). (People vs. Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95, 97)
The second limitation requires that criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define the
acts and omissions punished as crimes.
Constitutional rights of the accused.
Article III, Bill of Rights, of the 1987 Constitution provides for the following rights:
3
1.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. (Sec. 16)
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Sec. 14[1]
)
3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (Sec. 13)
4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14[2]
)
5. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. (Sec. 17)
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. (Sec. 12[1]
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado
CRIMINAL LAW
IN GENERAL Constitutional Rights of the Accused
4
)
No torture, force, violence;
perpetua
,
)
6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec. 19[1]
)
7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act. (Sec. 21)
8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty. (Sec. 11
)
Statutory rights of the accused.
Section 1, Rule 115, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that in all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall be entitled:
1. To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
3. To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment,
xxx
4. To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him.
5.
To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him
at the trial,
IN GENERAL Statutory Rights of the Accused
or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec 12[2]
) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
or Section 17
hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec. 12[3]
CRIMINAL LAW
xxx
5
Rules of Court, 1952 Edition, 748)
Characteristics of criminal law.
Criminal law has three main characteristics: (1) general, (2) territorial, and (3) prospective.
I. GENERAL, in that criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. (Art.
14, new Civil Code)
In a case where the accused contended that being an American citizen, he cannot be prosecuted for, much less
convicted of, the crime of illegal possession of firearms, because it is a constitutional right of the citizens of the
United States of America "to keep and bear arms"
without any need of applying and securing a government license therefor, the Court of Appeals held:
"The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation and the right of every government to uphold its laws
and maintain order within its domain, and with the general jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses
committed within its territory, regardless of the nationality
.
The reason or principle underlying the difference between rights which may be waived and rights which may
not be waived is that those rights which may be waived are personal, while those rights which may not be
waived involve public interest which may be affected. (2 Moran,
To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in
his behalf.
8. To have a speedy, impartial and public trial.
9.
To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.
Rights of the accused which may be waived and rights which may not be waived.
A right which may be waived is the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination. A right
which may not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
7.
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL Characteristics of Criminal Law
6
54 O.G. 1027)
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by the military
character of the accused.
U.S. vs. Sweet (1 Phil. 18)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the U.S. Army in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which
he was charged with the crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was an
employee of the U.S. military authorities deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him
unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts- martial over soldiers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over murder cases committed by persons subject to military law. The civil
courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation (Art. 217) committed by an army finance
officer. (People vs. Livara, G.R. No. L-6021,
war, t he civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-martial over
soldiers of the Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in
progress and civil courts are functioning. (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356)
and of the offender. (Salonga
Yap, Public International Law, p. 169)
No foreigner enjoys in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws and jurisdiction, with
the exception of heads of states and diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of the customary law of nations,
are not subject to the Philippine territorial jurisdiction." (People vs. Galacgac, C.A.,
.
Held: The case is open to the application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is
unaffected by the military or other special character of the person brought before them for trial,
April 20, 1954)
Even in times of
7
in Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
"In imposing the penalty for such crimes or offenses, the court-martial may take into consideration the
penalty prescribed therefor in the Revised Penal Code, other special laws, or local government ordinances."
The second paragraph of the above provision explicitly specifies what are considered "service-connected
crimes or offenses" under Commonwealth Act No. 408 (CA 408), as amended, also known as the
Area from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military District, the accused,
who were civilians at the outbreak of the war, became members of the Philippine Army amenable to the
Articles of War." (Ruffy, et al. v s. Chief of Staff, et al.,
75 Phil. 875)
Jurisdiction of military courts.
Section 1 of Rep. Act No. 7055 reads in full:
"Section 1.
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when the military court takes
cognizance of the case.
When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a person subject to military law, the Articles
of War apply, not the Revised Penal Code or other penal law.
"By their acceptance of appointments as officers in the Bolo
Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other persons subject to military law, including
members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under
the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances, regardless of whether or
not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or juridical persons, shall be
tried by the proper civil court, except when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court,
hat the President of
is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, T
the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
"As used in this Section, service-connected crimes or offenses shall be limited to those denned
8
Articles of War, to wit: those under Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of
Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
Rep. Act No. 7055 did not divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of Articles
54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92 and Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles of War as these are considered
"service-connected crimes or offenses." In fact, it mandates that these shall be tried by the court-martial.
In view of the clear mandate of Rep. Act No. 7055, the Regional Trial Court cannot divest the General
Court-Martial of its jurisdiction over those charged with violations of Articles 63 (Disrespect Toward the
President etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct Unbecoming
an Officer and a Gentleman) and 97 (General Article) of the Articles of War, as these are specifically included
as "service-connected offenses or crimes" under Section 1 thereof. Pursuant to the same provision of law, the
military courts have jurisdiction over these crimes or offenses. (Navales, et. al. vs. Abaya, et. al,
G.R. Nos. 162318-162341, Oct. 25, 2004)
The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial is a bar to another prosecution of the
accused for the same offense.
A court-martial is a court, and the prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal, not an administrative
case, and therefore it would be, under certain conditions, a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the
same offense, because the latter would place the accused in double jeopardy. (Marcos and Concordia vs.
Chief of Staff, AFP, 89 Phil. 246)
Offenders accused of war crimes are triable
by military commission.
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen though of a Japanese father, and associating himself with Japan in the war
against the United States of America and the Philippines, committed atrocities against unarmed and
non-combatant Filipino civilians and looted Filipino property. He is, indeed, a war criminal subject to the
jurisdiction of the military commission. (Cantos vs. Styer, 76 Phil. 748)
Executive Order No. 68 of the President of the Philippines establishing a National War Crimes Office and
prescribing rules
9
83 Phil. 171; Cowles, Trial of War Criminals by Military Tribunals, American Bar Association, June, 1944)
Exceptions to the general application of Criminal Law.
There are cases where our Criminal Law does not apply even if the crime is committed by a person residing
or sojourning in the Philippines. These constitute the exceptions.
The opening sentence of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code says that the provisions of this Code shall be
enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, "except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application.
"
Article 14 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Treaties or treaty stipulations.
An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation, as an exception to the general application of our criminal law, is
the Bases Agreement entered into by and between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America on March 14, 1947 (which expired on 16 September 1991), stipulating that "(t)he
Philippines consents that the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction over the following offenses:
(a) Any offense committed by any person within any base, except where the offender and the offended party
are both
and regulations governing the trial of war criminals is valid and constitutional, the President of the
Philippines having acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law
which are part of our Constitution. The promulgation of said executive order is an exercise by the President
of his powers as Commander-in-Chief of all our armed forces.
"War is not ended simply because hostilities have ceased. After cessation of armed hostilities, incidents of war
may remain pending which should be disposed of as in time of war."
A military commission "has jurisdiction so long as a technical state of war continues." This includes the
period of an armistice, or military occupation, up to the effective date of a treaty of peace. (Kuroda vs.
Jalandoni, et al.,
10
Philippine citizens (not members of the armed forces of the United States on active duty) or the offense is
against the security of the Philippines;
(b) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States in which
the offended party is also a member of the armed forces of the United States; and
(c) Any offense committed outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the United States against
the security of
the United States."
Under the Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines Regarding
the Treatment of United States Armed Forces Visiting the Philippines which was signed on 10 February 1998
("RP-US
Visiting Forces Accord"), the Philippines agreed that:
(a) US military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary
jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the US over US personnel in RP;
(b) US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the US punishable under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP;
(c) US military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel subject to
the military law of the US in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the US or
offenses solely against the property or person of US personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any act or
omission done in performance of official duty.
Law of preferential application.
Example of a law of preferential application.
Rep. Act No. 75 may be considered a law of preferential application in favor of diplomatic representatives
and their domestic servants.
11
in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt contracted
before he entered upon such service; nor shall the said section apply to any case where the person against
whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name of
the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and
transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon
receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his office. All persons shall have resort to the list of
names so posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and may take copies without fee."
Not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic
representatives.
"SEC.
and every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and every
officer concerned in executing it, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than
three years and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos in the discretion of the court."
Exceptions:
"SEC. 5. The provisions of Section four hereof shall not apply to any case where the person against whom the
process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines,
The provisions of this Act shall be applicable only in cases where the country of the diplomatic or consular
repre-
It is a law to penalize acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in
the Philippines. Its pertinent provisions are:
"SEC. 4. Any writ or process issued out or prosecuted by any person in any court of the Republic of the
Philippines, or by any judge or justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister o f any
foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant o f any
such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized or
attached, shall be deemed void,
7.
12
"
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws by virtue of the principles of
public international law.
The following are not subject to the operation of our criminal laws: (1)
Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resi-
dent, and charges d'affaires.
It is a well-established principle of international law that diplomatic representatives, such as ambassadors or
public ministers and their official retinue, possess immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of
their sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country. (II Hyde, International
Law, 2nd Ed.,
1266)
A consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister.
It is well-settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister,
but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. (Schneckenburger
vs. Moran, 63 Phil. 250)
In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of
the laws of the country where he resides.
Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations do not possess the status of,
and cannot claim the privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers. (Wheaton,
International Law, Sec. 249)
II. TERRITORIAL, in that criminal laws undertake to punish
crimes committed within Philippine territory.
The principle of territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within
its territory.
IN CRIMINAL LAW
GENERAL Characteristics of Criminal Law
sentative adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or consular
representatives of the Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar
offenses herein contained.
13
Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions of said code shall be
enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone.
Article I of the 1987 Constitution provides that the national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and
all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines.
Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.

The same Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that its provisions shall be
enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the Government of
the Philippines;
duction into the Philippines of the
3. entioned in the preceding number;
Should be liable for acts
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit

an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
Title One of Book Two of the Revised
5.
any of the crimes against national security and the
III. PROSPECTIVE, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a

manner in which it was not punishable when committed. As provided in
Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished under the laws in
force at the time of their commission.
CRIMINAL LAW IN
GENERAL Characteristics of
Criminal Law
14
Exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws.
Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable t o the accused, it
can be given a retroactive effect.
But this exception has no application:
1.
Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action. (Tavera
vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463, 470-471)
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under Rule 5,
Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22, RPC)
Different effects of repeal of penal law.
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied, except when the
offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is made not applicable to pending action or existing
causes of action.
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was penalized under the old law is no
longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be criminal.
People vs. Tamayo
(61 Phil. 225)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for and convicted of a violation of an ordinance. While the case was
pending appeal, the ordinance was repealed by eliminating the section under which the accused was being
prosecuted.
Ruling: T he repeal is absolute. Where the repeal is absolute, and not a reenactment
ceases to be criminal. The accused must be acquitted.
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL Different Effects of Repeal of Penal Law
or repeal by implication, t he offense
15
But repeal of a penal law by its reenactment, even without a saving clause, would not destroy criminal
liability. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241)
When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender can be
tried under the old law.

U.S. vs. Cuna (12 Phil. 241)
Facts: The accused was charged with selling opium in violation of Act No. 1461 of the Philippine Commission.
During the pendency of the case, Act No. 1761 took effect repealing the former law, but both Act No. 1461
and Act No. 1761 penalize offenses against the opium laws.
Ruling: W here an Act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former Act which penalized
the same offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the courts of jurisdiction to try,
convict, and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law prior to its repeal.
The penalty prescribed by Act No. 1761 is not more favorable t o the accused than that prescribed in Act No.
1461, the penalty in both Acts being the same.
When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused
cannot be convicted under the new law.

People vs. Sindiong and Pastor (77 Phil. 1000)
Facts: The accused was prosecuted for neglecting to make a return of the sales of newspapers and magazines
within the time prescribed by certain sections of the Revised Administrative Code. Said sections of the
Revised Administrative Code were repealed by the National Internal Revenue Code which does not require
the making of return of sales of newspapers and magazines.
Ruling: T he court loses jurisdiction where the repealing law wholly fails to penalize t he act denned
and penalized as an offense in the old law. The accused, charged with violations of the old law prior to the
repeal, cannot be legally prosecuted after such repeal.
16
The provisions of said sections of the Revised Administrative Code were not reenacted, even substantially, in
the National Internal Revenue Code.
A person erroneously accused and convicted under a repealed statute may be punished
under the repealing statute.
The accused was charged with having failed to pay the salary of Cabasares whom he employed as master
fisherman in his motor launch from June 26 to October 12, 1952. He was convicted under Com. Act No. 303,
which was repealed by Rep. Act No. 602, approved on April 16, 1951, and became effective 120 days
thereafter. The subject-matter of Com. Act No. 303 is entirely covered by Rep. Act No. 602 with which its
provisions are inconsistent. It was held that the fact that the offender was erroneously accused and convicted
under a statute which had already been repealed and therefore no longer existed at the time the act
complained of was committed does not prevent conviction under the repealing statute which punishes the
same act, provided the accused had an opportunity to defend himself against the charge brought against him.
(People vs. Baesa, C.A., 56 O.G. 5466)
A new law which omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject,
operates as a repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act.
The Agricultural Land Reform Code superseded the Agricultural Tenancy Law (except as qualified in
Sections 4 and 35 of the Code). The Code instituted the leasehold system and abolished share tenancy subject
to certain conditions indicated in Section 4 thereof. It is significant that Section 39 is not reproduced in the
Agricultural Land Reform Code whose Section 172 repeals "all laws or part of any law inconsistent with" its
provisions. Under the leasehold system, the prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison
ecause the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in Section 34 of the Agricultural Land
etre b
Reform Code, or the Code of Agrarian Reforms, as redesignated in R.A. No. 6389 which took effect on
September 10, 1971. Thus, the legal maxim, cessante ratione legis
cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases), applies to this case. (People vs.
Almuete, 69 SCRA 410)
d'
17
"the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to proceed with the forfeiture of goods and commodities
imported in violation of the Import Control Law was lost and that all proceedings of forfeiture, as well as
criminal actions pending on June 30, 1953, abated with the expiration of Republic Act No. 650."
The falsification or misrepresentation allegedly committed on the import license could no longer be a basis
for the penalty of forfeiture at the time of the release of goods. Where an act expires by its own limitation, the
effect is the same as though it had been repealed at the time of its expiration; and it is a recognized rule in this
jurisdiction that the repeal of a law carries with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict
and sentence persons charged with violation of the old law prior to the repeal. (People vs. Jacinto, C.A., 54
O.G. 7587)
Construction of penal laws.
1.
Self-repealing law.
The anomalous act attributed to Pedro de los
Reyes as described in the information is undoubtedly a violation of Republic Act No. 650 being a "material
misrepresentation in any document required" by said Act "or the rules and regulations issued thereunder"
and was committed while said Act was in force. It was punishable under Section 18 of said Act with fine or
imprisonment, or both, and with forfeiture of the goods or commodities imported in violation thereof. (Sec.
18, R.A. No. 650) But since Rep. Act No. 650 expired by its own limitation on June 30, 1953, the forfeiture
therein provided could no longer be subsequently enforced. And, as correctly stated by the Undersecretary of
Justice in his Opinion No. 138, dated July 22,1953,
Penal laws are strictly construed against the Government and liberally in favor of the accused. (U.S. vs. Abad
Santos, 36 Phil. 243; People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 728) The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed
against the State may be invoked only where the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for the application of the rule. (People vs.
Gatchalian, 104 Phil. 664)
2. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is
controlling,
CRIMINAL LAW IN GENERAL Construction of Penal Laws
18
because it was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. (People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665,
668)
People vs. Garcia (94 Phil. 814, 815)
Facts: Accused Garcia was prosecuted for having sold tickets for "Have" races of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes, in violation of Act 4130, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 301, which penalizes any
person who, without being a duly authorized agent of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, sold tickets of said
corporation. The tickets sold by the accused were different from, and not, the tickets issued by said
corporation. The law relied upon does not include "Have"
tickets for Sweepstakes races.
Held: T he accused must be acquitted, the act imputed to him not being punished by Act 4130, as amended.
No person should be brought within the terms of criminal statutes who is not clearly within them, nor should
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil.
243, 246)
People vs. Mangulabnan (99 Phil. 992, 998)
Facts: During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits fired his gun upward in the ceiling, not
knowing that there was a person in the ceiling of the house. The owner of the house who was up in the ceiling
was hit by the slug that passed through it and was killed.
Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code provides, according to its English text, that the crime is robbery
with homicide "when by reason or on occasion of the robbery the crime of homicide shall have been
committed."
The Spanish text of the same provision reads, as follows: "Cuando con motivo
homicidio."
Held: I n view of the Spanish text which must prevail, the crime committed is robbery with homicide, even if
the homicide supervened by mere accident.
While the English text of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code seems to convey the meaning that the
homicide should be
19
o con ocasion del robo resultare
intentionally committed, the Spanish text means that it is sufficient that the homicide shall have resulted, even
if by mere accident.
Other cases of incorrect translation of the Spanish text into the English text.
1. "sosteniendo combate" i nto "engaging
into "imprisonment" in Art. 157. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172, 174)
3.
crime" in the headnote of Art. 160. (People vs. Yabut, 58 Phil. 499, 504)
4. "semilla alimenticia"
into "cereal" in Art. 303. (People vs. Mesias, 65 Phil. 267, 268)
5. "filed" in the third paragraph of Art. 344 which is not found in the Spanish text. (People vs. Manaba, 58
Phil. 665, 668)
100 Phil. 90, 95-96)
2. "sufriendo
"nuevo
in war" in Art. 135. (People vs. Geronimo,
delito" into "another
privacion de libertad"
- oOo -
20
THE REVISED PENAL CODE

(Act No. 3815,
as amended) AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND
OTHER PENAL LAWS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Legislature assembled and by
the authority of the same.
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE - This law shall be known as
T h e Revised Penal Code."
BOOK ONE
General Provisions Regarding the Date of En- forcement and the Application
of the Provisions of this Code, and Regarding the Offenses, the Persons Liable
and the Penalties
Preliminary Title DATE OF EFFECTD7ENESS
AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE
History of the Revised Penal Code.
This Code is called "Revised Penal Code," because the Committee which was created by Administrative
Order No. 94 of the Department
21
HISTORY OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
of Justice, dated October 18, 1927, composed of Anacleto
Diaz, as chairman, and Quintin Paredes, Guillermo Guevara, Alex Reyes and Mariano H. de Joya, as
members, was instructed to revise the old Penal Code, taking into consideration the existing conditions, the
special penal laws and the rulings laid down by the Supreme Court. The Committee did not undertake the
codification of all penal laws

in the Philippines.
What the Committee did was merely to revise the old Penal Code and to include in the draft the other penal
laws related to it.
The Revised Penal Code does not embody the latest progress of criminal science, as the results of the
application of advanced and radical theories "still remain to be seen.
"
The old Penal Code, which was revised by the Committee, took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887, and
was in force up to December 31, 1931.
In the case of U.S. vs. Tamparong,
31 Phil. 321, 323, the Supreme Court traced the history of the old Penal Code, as follows:
"The royal order dated December 17, 1886, directed the execution of the royal decree of September 4, 1884,
wherein it was ordered that the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amended in accordance with the
recommendations of the code committee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands xxx.
(This law) having been published in the Official Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, became
effective four months thereafter."
The Revised Penal Code, as enacted by the Philippine Legisla- ture, was approved on December 8, 1930. It
took effect on January 1, 1932. Felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to January 1, 1932, were
punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their commission, as directed by Art. 366
of the Revised Penal Code.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books.
The Revised Penal Code consists of two books, namely: (1)
Book One, and (2) Book Two.
22
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Art 1 REVISED PENAL CODE

Book One consists of two parts: (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability (Arts. 1-20), and (b) the
provisions on penalties including criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).
In Book Two are defined felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under fourteen
different titles (Arts. 114-365).
Date of Effectiveness.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen
hundred and thirty-two.
The Revised Penal Code is based mainly on principles of the classical school.
This Revised Penal Code continues, like the old Penal Code, to be based on the principles of the old or
classical school, although some provisions of eminently positivistic tendencies (those having reference to the
punishment of impossible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incorporated in the present Code.
Two theories in Criminal Law.
There are two important theories in criminal law: (1) the classical theory, and (2) the positivist
theory.
Characteristics of the
classical theory.
1. The basis of criminal liability i s human free will and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil,
thereby placing more stress upon the effect o r result o f the felonious act than upon the man, the criminal
himself.
3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct
proportion between crime and penalty.
23
but rather through the enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal
and individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social scientists.
(Basic Principles, Rationale, pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1.
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS
Art. 2
4. There is a scant regard t o the human element. (Basic Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the Code Commission
on Code of Crimes)
Characteristics of the positivist theory.
1.
Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should com-
mit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
24
That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong,
in spite of or contrary to his volition.
2.
That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by
the application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment, fixed
and determined a priori;
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
Scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not only within t he Philippine Archipelago, but
also outside of its jurisdiction in certain cases
.
The five paragraphs of Art. 2 treat of the application of the Revised Penal Code to acts committed in the air,
at sea, and even in a foreign country when such acts affect the political or economic life of the nation.
In what cases are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code applicable even if the felony is
committed outside of the Philippines?
They are applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship.
The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from the seashore, is considered part of the national
territory.
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of
the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil courts for violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, t he crime committed on said
vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of
Customs.
It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship
of its owner, which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft
25
Art. 2
which is unregistered or unlicensed does not come within the purview of paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2.
Thus, if a crime is committed ten miles from the shores of the Philippines on board a vessel belonging to a
Filipino, but the same is not registered or licensed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, paragraph
No. 1 of Art. 2 is not applicable.
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel
not registered or licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations
and securities issued by the Government.
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank notes or other
obligations and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country may be prosecuted before our civil courts for
violation of Art. 163
or Art. 166 of the Revised Penal Code.
3.
When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into
the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of the same, to the economical interest of the
country.
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense in the exercise of his
functions.
The crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are direct bribery (Art. 210), indirect
bribery (Art. 211),
frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213), possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of
public funds or property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of
public funds or property (Art. 220), failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221),
and falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official position. (Art. 171)
26
country (Art. 121), and piracy and mutiny on the high seas. (Art. 122)
The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court in which the charge is filed
.
The crimes committed outside of the Philippines but punishable therein under Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code shall be cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge is first filed. (Rule 110, Sec. 15[d],
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Regional Trial Courts (formerly CFI)
have original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses commited on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction
of any country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in accord-
ance with its laws. (Sec. 44[g], Judiciary Act of 1948, Rep. Act No. 296)
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 2
1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
This phrase means that while the general rule is that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be
enforced against any person who violates any of its provisions while living or sojourning in the Philippines,
the exceptions to that rule may be provided by the treaties and laws of preferential applications, l ike the RP-US
Visiting Forces Accord, the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic
27
3pW2!
When the offender should commit any of the crimes against
the national security and the law of nations.
The crimes against the national security and the law of nations are treason (Art. 114),
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting to war and giving
motives for reprisals (Art. 118),
violation of neutrality (Art. 119),
correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120), flight to enemy's
y any of our public officers or employees while in the
When any of these felonies is committed abroad b
exercise of his functions,
he can be prosecuted here.
5.
»
Art. 2
of the Philippines and the United States of America, and the provisions of Rep. Act No. 75.
2. "its atmosphere."
The sovereignty of the subjacent
and therefore its penal laws extend to all the air space which covers its territory, subject to the right of way or
easement in favor of foreign aircrafts.
3. "interior waters."
The phrase "interior waters" includes creeks, rivers, lakes and bays, gulfs, straits, coves, inlets and
roadsteads lying wholly within the three-mile limit.
4. "maritime zone."
The States by means of treaties have fixed its length to three miles from the coastline, starting from the low
water mark.
It includes those bays,
parts of the sea or recesses in the coastline whose width at their entrance is not more than twelve miles
measured in a straight line from headland to headland, and all straits of
less than six miles wide.
For those straits having more than t hat width, the space in the center outside of the marine league limits is
considered as open sea. (Opinion of Attorney General, Jan. 18,1912
)
Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.
Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory, foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of
the territory of the country to which it belongs. For this reason, an offense commited on the high seas o n
board a foreign merchant vessel i s not triable by our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.
But a continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing from Formosa to the
Philippines, by failing
28
gulfs,
adjacent
State,
to provide stalls for animals in transit in violation of Act No. 55, is triable in the Philippines.
The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing animals while transporting them on a (foreign)
ship from a foreign port to a port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines
when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within territorial waters, regardless of the
fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high
seas. (U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7)
Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is triable
before our court.
Since the Philippine territory extends to three miles from the headlands, when a foreign merchant vessel
enters this three-mile limit, the ship's officers and crew become subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. The
space within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay is within
territorial waters.
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 17-18)
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels.
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial
waters of another country.
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the
peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
English Rule. — S uch crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or
they refer to the internal management thereof.
In this country, we observe the English Rule.
According to the French theory and practice,
matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the port or persons
foreign to the crew, are justiceable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs. The French
courts therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French merchant vessels in
foreign ports by one member of the crew against
29
Art. 2
another. Such jurisdiction has never been admitted or claimed by Great Britain as a right,
although she has frequently conceded it by treaties. (U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7,
14)
Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide

committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by a member of
the crew against another?
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board are to be dealt with
exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which disturb
the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by
the proper authorities of the local jurisdiction.
It may not be easy at all times to determine to which of the two jurisdictions a
particular act of disorder belongs. Much will undoubtedly depend on the
attending circumstances of the particular case, but all must concede that
felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction, and that if the proper
authorities are proceeding with the case in the regular way, the consul has no
right to interfere to prevent it. (Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the
Common Jail, 120 U.S. 1, cited in People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729,
731-732)
Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on

board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by our
courts. Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit

is not triable in Philippine courts, because that fact alone does not constitute a
breach of public order. The reason for this ruling is that mere possession of
opium on such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring about
in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplates avoiding. But
said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed from the
vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an open violation of the
laws of the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573, 577-578)
ecause the Philippines is its terminal
When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit b
port, the person in possession of opium on board that vessel is liable, because
he may be held guilty of illegal importation of opium. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36
Phil. 978, 981-982)
30
Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.
Smoking opium aboard an English vessel while anchored two and one-half miles in
Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public order, because the primary object of
the law in punishing the use of opium is to protect the inhabitants of this
country against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of such drug. And to
smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign
merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established,
because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our
territory. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach
of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine jurisdictional
waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board

foreign warships in territorial waters.
In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of a foreign country, a distinction
must be made between merchant ships a nd warships; the former are more or
less subjected to the territorial laws.
(See U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573; and People vs.
Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)
Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and
cannot be subjected to the laws of another state. A United States Army
transport is considered a warship. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372.

Rep. Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the "Human Security Act of 2007" which was
passed into law on 6 March 2007 has extra-
territorial application.
Section 58 of Rep. Act No. 9372 provides that subject to the provision of an existing
treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of
any law of preferential application, the provisions of the Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and
punished in the Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters,
maritime zone and airspace of the Philippines;
31
Art. 2
(2)
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit,
conspire of plot any of the crimes denned
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
and punished in the Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
;
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of
the said crimes on board Philippine ship or airship;
to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity;
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said
crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a
factor in the commission of the crime; and
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said
crimes directly against the Philippine government.
32
Title One FELONIES AND
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
FELONIES
Art. 3. Definition. — 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 is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
Felonies, defined.
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code.
Elements of felonies.
The elements of felonies in general are:
1 2.
. ust be punishable by the Revised Penal
st be an act or omission.
3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo
or culpa. (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19, 1990, 183
SCRA 309, 324)
33
FELONIES
Art. 3
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 3.
Meaning of the word "act."

By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as
the possibility o f its production is sufficient. (See People vs. Gonzales, supra)
But the act must be one which is defined by the Revised Penal Code as constituting a
felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act which
has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed. (See Art. 6)
Example of felony by performing an act.

A took the watch of B with intent to gain and without the consent of the latter. The act
of taking the watch of B, with intent to gain, constitutes the crime of theft.
Only external act is punished.

ecause internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
The act must be external, b
Hence, a criminal thought or a mere intention, no matter how immoral or
improper it may be, will never constitute a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he does not commence the
commission of the crime directly by overt act, A is not criminally liable.
Meaning of the word "omission."

By omission is meant inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound
to do. There must be a law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
Examples of felony by omission:
1.
Anyone who fails t o render 3
ny person whom he finds in an uninhabited place 4
n danger of dying, is liable for abandonment of
ger. (Art. 275, par. 1)
)
3. Every person owing allegiance to the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any
conspiracy against the government, who does not disclose a nd make known the same to the proper authority,
is liable for misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
It will be noted that in felonies by omission, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the
person required to do the act fails to perform it.
The omission must be punishable by law.
Because there is no law t hat punishes a person who does not report to the authorities the commission of a
crime which he witnessed, the omission t o do so is not a felony.
People vs. Silvestre
and Atienza (56 Phil. 353)
artin Atienza was convicted as principal by direct par- ticipation and Romana
Facts: M
Silvestre as accomplice of the crime of arson by the Court of First Instance.
On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas de
la Cruz and his wife, Antonia
de la Cruz, were gathered together with the appellants herein after supper, Martin Atienza told said couple to
take their furniture out of the house because he was going to set fire to it. Upon being asked by Nicolas and
Antonia why he wanted to set fire to the house, he answered that it was the only way he could be revenged
upon the people of Masocol, who, he said, had instigated the charge of adultery against him and his
co-defendant, Romana Silvestre. As Martin Atienza was at that time armed with a pistol, no one dared say
anything to him, not even Romana Silvestre, who was about a meter away from her co-defendant. Alarmed at
what Martin Atienza had said, the couple left the house at once to communicate with the barrio lieutenant,
Buenaventura Ania, as to what they had just heard Martin Atienza say; but they had hardly gone a hundred
arms' length when they heard cries of "Fire!
Fire!" Turning back they saw their home in flames. The fire destroyed about forty-eight houses.
35
FELONIES Art. 3
2.
An officer entrusted with collection of taxes who voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as provided by law, is
guilty of illegal exaction. (Art. 213, par. 2[b]
and "offense" which are applied to infractions of the law punished by special statutes.
Classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed.
Art. 3 classifies felonies, according to the means by which they are committed, into (1) intentional felonies,
and (2) culpable felonies.
Thus, the second paragraph of Art. 3 states that felonies are committed not only by means o f deceit (dolo) b
ut
also by means of fault (culpa).
Intentional felonies and culpable felonies distinguished.
In intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious. I n the language of Art. 3, the act is
performed with deliberate intent (with malice). The offender, in performing the act or in incurring the
omission, has the intention to cause an injury t o another. In culpable felonies, the act or omission of the
offender is not malicious. The injury caused by the offender to another person is "unintentional, it being
simply the incident of another act performed without malice." (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) As stated in Art.
3, the
36
FELONIES
Art. 3
Romana listened to her co-defendant's threat without raising a protest, and did not give the alarm when the
latter set fire to the house. Held: M
ere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence
and
failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, is not punishable.
Romana Silvestre was acquitted.
"Punishable by law."
This is the other element of a felony. This is based upon the maxim, "nullum
that is, there is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
The phrase "punished by law" should be understood to mean "punished by the Revised Penal Code" and not
by a special law. That is to say, the term "felony" means acts and omissions punished in the Revised Penal
Code, to distinguish it from the words "crime"
crimen, nulla poena sine lege,"
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice.
The word "deceit" in the second paragraph of Art. 3 is not the proper translation of the word "dolo."
Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another. (I Wharton's Criminal Law 180)
When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an injury to the
person, property,
or right of another, such offender acts with malice. If the act or omission is punished by the Revised Penal
Code, he is liable for intentional felony. Most of the felonies defined and penalized in Book II of the Revised

Penal Code are committed by means of dolo o r with malice. There are few felonies committed by means of
fault or culpa. Art. 217 punishes malversation through negligence. Art. 224 punishes evasion through
negligence. Art. 365 punishes acts by imprudence or negligence, which, had they been intentional, would
constitute grave, less grave or light felonies.
There are crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence, such as, murder, treason,
robbery, and malicious mischief.
Felonies committed by means of fault or culpa.
Between an act performed voluntarily and intentionally, and another committed unconsciously and quite
unintentionally, there exists another, performed without malice, but at the same time punishable, though in a
lesser degree and with an equal result, an intermediate act which the Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or
negligence.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for
culpable felony.
The defendant, who was not a medical practitioner, tied a girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with
petroleum and thereafter set them on fire, causing injuries. His defense was that he undertook
37
FELONIES
Art. 3
to render medical assistance in good faith and to the best of his ability to cure her of ulcer. It was held that
while there was no intention to cause an evil but to provide a remedy, the defendant was liable for physical
injuries through imprudence. (U.S. vs. Divino,
12 Phil. 175, 190)
Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action. N egligence indicates a deficiency of perception. If a person fails to
take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or damage to property, there is imprudence. If a
person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to
be caused, there is negligence. Negligence usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence usually involves lack
of skill.
Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa).
A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful
and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such
results as anyone might foresee and for his acts which no one would have performed except through culpable
abandon. Otherwise, his own person, rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would ever be
exposed to all manner of danger and injury. (U.S. vs. Maleza, 14 Phil. 468, 470)
In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice and in felonies committed by means
of fault or culpa, the acts or omissions are voluntary.
The adjective voluntary used in the old Penal Code is suppressed in the definition of felonies in Art. 3 of the
Revised Penal Code. This omission does not mean that an involuntary act may constitute a felony. As in the
old Penal Code, the act or omission must be voluntary and punishable by law to constitute a felony. Art. 3
classifies felonies into (1)
intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. An intentional felony is committed when the act is performed
with deliberate intent, which must necessarily be voluntary.
On the other hand, in culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary.
38
FELONIES Art. 3
The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts
with malice; whereas, in the second, the offender acts without malice.
The definition of reckless imprudence in Art. 365 says "reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, b ut
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results.
"
Thus, a hunter who seemed to have seen with his lantern something like the eyes of a deer about fifty meters
from him and then shot it, but much to his surprise, on approaching what he thought was a deer, it proved to
be his companion, performed a voluntary act in discharging his gun, although the resulting homicide is
ecause he did not have the intent to kill the deceased.
without malice, b
But the hunter, knowing that he had two companions, should have exercised all the necessary diligence to
avoid every undesirable accident, such as the one that unfortunately occurred on the person of one of his
companions. The hunter was guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence (People vs.
Ramirez, 48 Phil. 206)
A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails over assumption, and in the absence of indubitable
explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and punishable. (People vs. Macalisang, 22 SCRA 699)
Acts executed negligently are voluntary.
People vs. Lopez (C.A.
44 O.G. 584)
opez was driving a truck. A girl was crossing the street during a torrential rain. The girl was struck
Facts: L
down by the truck. During the trial, Lopez claimed that he had no intention of causing injury to the girl.
Held: Lopez was not accused of intentional homicide, but of having

caused her death by reckless imprudence,
which implies lack of malice and criminal intent. Acts executed negligently are voluntary, although done
without malice or criminal design. In this case, Lopez was not compelled to refrain or prevented f rom taking
the precaution necessary to avoid injury to persons.
When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.
39
FELONIES
Art. 3
Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must be voluntary.
1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the Classical Theory, according to which the basis of
criminal liability is human free will.
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always deemed voluntary, since man is a rational being. One must
prove that his case falls under Art. 12 to show that his act or omission is not voluntary.
3. In felonies by dolo, t he act is performed with deliberate intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in
felonies by culpa, t he imprudence consists in voluntarily,
but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material injury results.
Therefore, in felonies committed by means of dolo, a s well as in those committed by means of culpa, the act
performed or the omission incurred by the offender is voluntary, but the intent or malice in intentional
felonies is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies.
Requisites of dolo or malice.
In order that an act or Omission
may be considered as having been performed or incurred with deliberate intent, the following requisites must
concur:
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or
omitting to do an act;
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act
or omitting to do the act;
(3) He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting
to do the act.
1. Freedom. When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool; his liability is as
much as that of the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets fire, or of the key that opens a door, or of the
ladder that is placed against the wall of a house in committing robbery.
40
Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. (Art.
12, par. 5)
So also, a person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 6)
2. Intelligence. W ithout this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts, n o crime can exist.
Thus, the imbecile or the insane, and the infant under nine years of age as, well as the minor over nine but
less than fifteen years old and acting without discernment, have no criminal liability, because they act without
intelligence. (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2 and 3)
3. Intent. I ntent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is presumed and the
presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional felony must be present, because "a
voluntary act is a free, intelligent, a nd intentional act."
(U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495)
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another. One who acts without
intelligence has no such intent. But a person who acts with freedom and with intelligence may not have the
intent to do an injury to another. Thus, a person who caused an injury by mere accident had freedom and
intelligence, but since he had no fault or intention of causing it, he is not criminally liable. (Art. 12, par. 4,
Revised Penal Code)
The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person. Where the defendant carried
away articles belonging to another and concealed them from the owner and from the police authorities,
denying having them in his possession, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it may be inferred that he
acted with intent of gain. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a person.
(Soriano vs. People, 88 Phil. 368, 374)
41
FELONIES
Art. 3
Intent to kill is difficult to prove, it being a mental act. But it can be deduced from the external acts
performed by a person. When the acts naturally produce a definite result, courts are slow in con- cluding
that some other result was intended. (U.S. vs. Mendoza, 38 Phil. 691-693; People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil. 967,
cited in People vs. Lao, 11 C.A. Rep. 829)
Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.
People vs. Sia Teb Ban (54 Phil. 52, 53)
Facts: T he accused took a watch without the owner's consent. He was prosecuted for theft. The accused
alleged as a defense that the prosecution failed to prove the intent to gain on his part, an element of the
crime of theft.
Held: From the felonious act (taking another's property) of the accused, freely and deliberately e xecuted, the
moral and legal presumption of a criminal and injurious intent arises conclusively and indisputably, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.
(See: People vs. Renegado, No. L-27031,
SCRA 275, 286)
Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. (U.S. vs. Apostol, 14 Phil. 92, 93)
But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise from
the proof of the commission of an act which is not unlawful.
U.S. vs. Catolico (18 Phil. 504, 508)
he accused was a justice of the peace. He rendered decisions in certain cases, each one for damages
Facts: T
resulting from a breach of contract, from which the defendants appealed. As required by law, the
defendants deposited P16.00
for each case. It appeared that the sureties on the said bonds were insolvent and that the defendants did not
present new bonds within the time fixed
42
and a bond of
May 31,1974,57
f*50.00
by the accused as justice of the peace. Upon petition of the plaintiffs, the accused dismissed the appeals and
ordered said sums attached and delivered to the plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment. The accused was
prosecuted for malversation (a felony punishable now under Art. 217).
Held: The act of the accused, in permitting the sums deposited with him to be attached in satisfaction of the
judgment rendered by him, was not unlawful. E verything he did was done in good faith under the belief that
he was acting judiciously and correctly. The act of a person does not make him a criminal, unless his mind be
criminal.
The maxim is: actus non
nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to act complained be
innocent. It is true that a presumption of criminal intent may arise from proof of the commission of a
criminal act; and the general rule is that if it is proved that the accused committed the criminal act charged, it
will be presumed that the act was done with criminal intention and that it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption. But it must be borne in mind that the act from which such presumption springs must be a
criminal act. In the case at bar, the act was not criminal.
Where the facts proven are accompanied by other facts which show that the act complained of was not
unlawful, the presumption of criminal intent does not arise.
There is no felony by dolo if there is no intent.
The presumption of criminal intent from the commission of an unlawful act may be rebutted by proof of lack
of such intent.
Thus, a minor who married without parental consent, in violation of Art. 475 of the old Penal Code which
punished "any minor who shall contract marriage without the consent of his or her parents," was not liable
criminally, because she proved that she acted without malice. The defendant minor testified that she believed
that she was born in 1879; that so her parents gave her to understand ever since her tenderest age; and that
she did not ask them concerning her age, because they had already given her to so understand since her
childhood. The presumption of malice was rebutted by her testimony. One cannot be convicted under Article
475 (similar to Art. 350 of the Revised Penal Code) when by reason of a mistake of fact t here does
43
facit reum,
guilty of the charge and the recommendation of the jury was approved by the Headquarters of the guerrilla
unit. For the execution of Borjal, the accused was prosecuted for murder.
The accused acted upon orders of superior officers which turned out to be illegal. As a military subordinate,
he could not question the orders of his superior officers. He obeyed the orders in good faith, without being
aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part.
Held: Criminal intent was not established. To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made
such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal intent, o r by such negligence o r indifference to duty o r to
consequences, a s in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. (U.S. vs. Catolico, 18 Phil. 507) The accused was
acquitted.
Mistake of fact.
While ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith (ignorantia legis
non excusat), ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability (ignorantia facti
excusat)

. Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is
not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a
felonious act. (People
44
FELONIES
Art. 3
not exist the intention to commit the crime. (U.S. vs. Penalosa,
1 Phil. 109)
Also, a person who suddenly got up in his sleep, left the room with a bolo
in his hand, and upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen and attacked
others, is not criminally liable, because his acts were not voluntary, for having acted in a dream; he had no
criminal intent. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255)
People vs. Beronilla
for Borjal
treason and to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen. The jury found Borjal
(96 Phil. 566)
Facts: T he accused was a military major of La Paz, Abra, in 1944. He received an order from the regional
commander of an infantry, Philippine Army, operating as a guerrilla unit, to prosecute Arsenio
That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act
should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused.
Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred from the facts of the case.
The defendant swore to Civil Service Form No. 1 before a notary public that he was never accused of a
violation of any law before any court or tribunal, when in truth and in fact he had been charged with the
offense of unjust vexation in a criminal case before the Justice of the Peace Court. He was prosecuted for the
crime of perjury, for having falsely sworn that he was never accused of any offense. When he testified in his
defense, the defendant claimed that he answered "No"
FELONIES Art. 3
vs. Coching, et al.,
to the question whether he had been accused of a violation of any law, because he relied on the opinion of the
provincial fiscal that unjust vexation does not involve moral turpitude and he thought it was not necessary to
mention it in Civil Service Form No. 1. It appeared that he had been previously prosecuted twice for perjury
for having answered "No"
74 Phil. 257)
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
1.
to the same question, and he was acquitted in one case and the information in the other was dismissed. It was
held that in view of the factual background of the case, the act of the defendant in answering "No" to the
question can be considered only as an error of judgment and did not indicate an intention to commit the
crime of perjury. The defendant was not liable for the crime of perjury, because he had no intent to commit
the crime. (People vs. Formaran,
C.A., 70 O.G. 3786)
In mistake of fact, the act done would have been lawful, had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
In other words, the act done would not constitute a felony h
ad the facts been as the accused believed them to
be.
45
C.A., 52 O.G. 293, citing People vs. Oanis,
but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again,
"If you enter the room I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been
placed against the door, and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and struck and
fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.
Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact.
Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder
under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which requires, to justify the act, that there be —
(1)
FELONIES
Art. 3
Thus, in the cases of U.S. vs. Penalosa
and People vs. Beronilla, supra, the accused in the first case believed that she was already of age when she
contracted marriage and the accused in the second case believed that the orders of his superior officer were
legal. Had they been the real facts, there would not be any felony committed. But even if they were not the
real facts, since the accused acted in good faith, they acted without intent. Hence, their acts were invol-
untary.
In mistake of fact, the act done by the accused would have constituted (1) a justifying circumstance under
Art. 11, (2) an abso- lutory cause, such as that contemplated in Art. 247, par. 2, or (3) an involuntary act.
U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488)
h Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley.
Facts: A
unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. If the
intruder was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been unlawful
aggression on the part of the intruder. There would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend
himself and/or his home. The knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression.
And Ah
46
He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a
chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He
called out twice, "Who is there,"
FELONIES Art. 3
Chong gave no provocation at all. Under Article 11
of the Revised Penal Code, there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well as in the act of the person making
the defense.
(See: People vs. Mamasalaya, No. L-4911,
Phil. 639, 654)
People vs. Oanis (74 Phil. 257)
Facts: C hief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions to arrest one
Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding
to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door,
simultaneously fired at him with their revolvers, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his
identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson, and not the wanted criminal.
Held: Both accused are guilty of murder.
Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing
him while the latter was sleeping.
In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only
when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him that
killing him would be justified.
The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
Ah Chong case and Oanis case distinguished.
In the Ah Chong c ase, there is an innocent mistake of fact without any fault or carelessness on the part of the
accused, because, having no time or opportunity to make any further inquiry, and being pressed by
circumstances to act immediately, the accused had no alternative but to take the facts as they then appeared
to him, and such facts justified his act of killing the deceased.
In the Oanis case, the accused found no circumstances whatever which would press them to immediate action.
The person in the room
47
Feb. 10,1953,92
FELONIES
Art. 3
being then asleep, the accused had ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the
victim was unarmed. This, indeed, is the only legitimate course of action for the accused to follow even if the
victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight, but to arrest, and to get him
dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is offered by him.
Hence, the accused in the Oanis c ase were at fault when they shot the victim in violation of the instructions
given to them. They were also careless in not verifying first the identity of the victim.
Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his intention was to kill another, does not relieve
the accused from criminal responsibility.
That the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another cannot relieve him from criminal
responsibility, he having acted maliciously and wilfully. (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605)
In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
Thus,
in error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply.
Example: A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. Thinking that the person walking in dark alley was
B,
A shot the person. It turned out that the person killed was C, the brother of A. A had no intention to kill C.
Since the act and intention of A in firing his pistol are unlawful, A cannot properly invoke the principle of
mistake of fact in his defense.
No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of fact.
One who resists an arrest, believing that the peace officer is a bandit, but who submits to the arrest
immediately upon being informed by the peace officer that he is a policeman, is not guilty of the crime of
resistance to an agent of the authorities under Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code, because of mistake of fact.
(See U.S. vs. Bautista, 31 Phil. 308)
48
FELONIES Art. 3
When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a defense.
People vs. De Fernando (49 Phil. 75)
he accused, a policeman, was informed that three convicts had escaped. In the dark, he saw a person
Facts: T
going up the stairs of a house, carrying a bolo
and calling for someone inside. The daughter of the owner of the house was at that time with the accused who
fired a shot in the air. As the unknown person continued to ascend the stairs and believing that he was one of
the escaped convicts, the accused fired directly at the man who turned out to be the nephew of the owner of
the house.
Held: He is guilty of homicide through reckless negligence. The victim called for someone in the house. That
fact indicated that he was known to the owner of the house. The accused should have inquired from the
daughter of the owner of the house as to who the unknown person might be.
The defense of mistake of fact is untenable when the accused is charged with a culpable felony. In mistake of
fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the part of the accused. In felonies committed through negligence,
there is no intent to consider, as it is replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo.
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo b ecause of the legal maxims —
Actus non facit reum
nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so."
Actus me invito factus non est meus
actus, "an act done by me against my will is not my act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 499)
Distinction between general intent and specific intent.
In felonies committed by dolus,
the third element of voluntariness is a general intent; whereas, in some particular felonies, proof of
particular specific intent i s required. Thus, in certain crimes against
49
FELONIES
Art. 3
property, there must be the intent to gain (Art. 293 — robbery; Art. 308
— theft). Intent to kill is essential in frustrated or attempted homicide (Art. 6 in relation to Art. 249); in
forcible abduction (Art. 342), the specific intent of lewd designs must be proved.
When the accused is charged with intentional felony, absence of criminal intent is a
defense.
In the absence of criminal intent, there is no liability for intentional felony. All reasonable doubt intended to
demonstrate error and not crime should be indulged in for the benefit of the accused. (People vs. Pacana, 47
Phil. 48)
If there is only error on the part of the person doing the act, he does not act with malice, and for that reason
he is not criminally liable for intentional felony.
Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and imprudence in felonies committed by means
of culpa.
In felonies committed by means of culpa, s ince the doing of or failing to do an act must also be voluntary,
there must be freedom and intelligence on the part of the offender, but the requisite of criminal intent, which
is required in felonies by dolo, i s replaced by the requisite of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
Such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequence is, in law, equivalent to criminal intent. (U.S. vs.
Catolico, 18 Phil. 507)
But in felonies committed by means of culpa, t he mind of the accused is not criminal. However, his act is
wrongful, because the injury or damage caused to the injured party results from the imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill of the accused.
Therefore, in order that the act or omission in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa m ay be
considered voluntary, the following requisites must concur:
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting
to do an act;
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or
omitting to do the act;
50
FELONIES Art. 3
(3) He
is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the
act.
In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply
the incident of another act performed without malice.
People vs. Guillen (85 Phil. 307)
Facts: G uillen, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he performed the act voluntarily; that his purpose
was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the
President when he hurled that bomb, because the killing of those who surrounded the President was
tantamount to killing the President, in view of the fact that those persons, being loyal to the President, were
identified with the latter. In other words, although it was not his main intention to kill the persons
surrounding the Presi- dent, he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of
killing the President.
Held: The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only of homicide
through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less serious physical injuries in
regard to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo
Maglalang. and Emilio
In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, the appellant acted with
malice. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance with Art. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury
caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without
malice. (People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) In the words of Viada, "in order that an act may be qualified as
imprudence it is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene; where such
intention exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced even though it may not have been
the intention of the actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced." (Viada's comment on the Penal
Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed.,
p. 7) And, as was held by this court, deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the
idea of reckless imprudence. (People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232)
51
FELONIES
Art. 3
Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence.
A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence.
Where such an unlawful act is willfully done,
a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. (People vs.
Guillen, 85 Phil. 307, citing People vs. Nanquil, 43 Phil. 232, and People vs. Guia, 54 Phil. 605)
A person causing damage or injury to another, without malice or fault, is not criminally
liable under the Revised Penal Code. Since felonies are committed either by means of deceit (dolo) o r
by means of fault (culpa), if there is neither malice nor negligence on the part of the person causing damage
or injury to another, he is not criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code.
In such case, he is exempt from criminal liability, because he causes an injury by mere accident, without fault
or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal Code)
Illustration:
Three men, Ramos, Abandia and Catangay, were hunting deer at night. Ramos carried a lantern fastened to
his forehead. Abandia and Catangay were following him. They saw a deer. Catangay whose gun was already
cocked and aimed at the deer stumbled against an embankment which lay between him and Ramos. His gun
was accidentally discharged, hitting and killing Ramos. It was held that Catangay was not criminally liable
because he had no criminal intent and was not negligent. (U.S. vs. Catangay, 28 Phil. 490)
The act performed must be lawful.
In the foregoing illustration, the act of aiming the gun at the deer while hunting is lawful, it not being
prohibited by any law.
But the act of discharging a gun in a public place i s unlawful. (Art. 155, Revised Penal Code) In such case, if a
person is injured as a result of the discharge of the gun, the one discharging it in a public place is criminally
liable for the injury caused.
52
FELONIES Art. 3
The third class of crimes are those punished by special laws.
There are three classes of crimes. The Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes the first two classes of
crimes, (1) the intentional felonies, and (2) the culpable felonies. The third class of crimes are those defined
and penalized by special laws which include crimes punished by municipal or city ordinances.
Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary. It is
sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.
Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate t he act must be distinguished. A person may not have
consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very
nature of things, the crime itself. (U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128)
In the first ( intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal intent; in the second ( intent to perpetrate the
act), it is enough that the prohibited act i s done freely a nd consciously.
People vs. Bayona (61 Phil. 181)
Facts: D efendant was driving his automobile on a road in front of electoral precinct No. 4 in Barrio de
Aranguel,
Pilar, Capiz. He had a revolver with him. He was called by his friend, Jose D. Benliro. He alighted from his
automobile and approached him to find out what he wanted. He did not leave his revolver in the automobile,
because there were many people in the road in front of the polling place and he might lose it. He was within
the fence surrounding the polling place when Jose E. Desiderio, a representative of the Department of the
Interior, took possession of the revolver defendant was carrying. The Solicitor-General was for his acquittal.
Held: The law which defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with which he violated is
immaterial. It may be conceded that defendant did not intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in
any other way, but when he got out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding
the polling place,
53
FELONIES
Art. 3
he committed the act complained of, and he committed it wilfully. The Election Law does not require for its
violation that the offender has the intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election.
The rule is that in acts mala in se,
there must be a criminal intent; but in those mala prohibita, i t is sufficient if the prohibited act was
intentionally done.
Since the Election Code prohibits and punishes the carrying of a firearm inside the polling place, and that
person did the prohibited act freely and consciously, he had the intent to perpetrate the act.
No intent to perpetrate the act prohibited.
If a man with a revolver merely passes along a public road on election day, within fifty meters of a polling
place, he does not violate the provision of the law in question, because he had no intent to perpetrate the act
prohibited, and the same thing would be true of a peace officer in pursuing a criminal; nor would the
prohibition extend to persons living within fifty meters of a polling place, who merely clean or handle their
firearms within their own residences on election day, as they would not be carrying firearms within the
contemplation of the law. (People vs. Bayona, supra)
In those crimes punished by special laws, the act alone, irrespective of its motives,
constitutes the offense.
U.S. us. Siy Cong Bieng, et al. (30 Phil. 577)
Facts: C o Kong, while in charge of appellant's store and acting as his agent and employee, sold, in the
ordinary course of business, coffee which had been adulterated by the admixture of peanuts and other
extraneous substances.
Question: Whether a conviction under the Pure Food and Drugs Act (No. 1655 of the Philippine Commission)
can be sustained where it appears that the sale of adulterated food products was made without guilty
knowledge of the fact of adulteration.
Held: While it is true that, as a rule and on principles of abstract justice, men are not and should not be held
criminally responsible for
54
106 N.Y., 321, cited in the case of U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 133)
Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in crimes made such by statutory enactment.
The accused was charged with a violation of Section 1 of Act No.
1696 of the Philippine Commission, which punishes any person who shall expose to public view any flag,
banner, emblem or device used during the late insurrection in the Philippines. Even if the accused acted
without criminal intent, the lower court convicted him. In affirming the judgment of conviction of the lower
court, the Supreme Court said — "The display of a flag or emblem used, particularly within a recent
period,
by the enemies of the Government tends to incite resistance of governmental functions and insurrection
against governmental authority just as effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made with the most
corrupt intent. The display itself, without the intervention of any other fact, is the evil. It is quite different
from that large class of crimes, made such by the common law or by statute,
FELONIES Art. 3
acts committed by them without guilty knowledge and criminal or at least evil intent, the courts have always
recognized the power of the legislature, on grounds of public policy and compelled by necessity, "the greater
master of things," to forbid in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission
criminal without regard to the intent of the doer.
It is notorious that the adulteration of food products has grown to proportions so enormous as to menace the
health and safety of the people. Ingenuity keeps pace with greed, and the careless and heedless consumers
are exposed to increasing perils. To redress such evils is a plain duty but a difficult task. Experience has
taught the lesson that repressive measures which depend for their efficiency upon proof of the dealer's
knowledge or of his intent to deceive and defraud are of little use and rarely accomplish their purposes. Such
an emergency may justify legislation which throws upon the seller the entire responsibility of the purity and
sound- ness of what he sells and compels him to know and to be certain. (People vs. Kibler,
effect upon the public depends upon the corrupt intention of the person perpetrating the act. If A discharges
a loaded gun and kills B, the interest which society has in the act depends, not upon B's death, but upon the
intention with which A consummated the
55
in which the injurious
FELONIES
Art. 3
act. If the gun was discharged intentionally, with the purpose of accomplishing the death of B, then society
has been injured and its security violated; but if the gun was discharged accidentally on the part of A, then
society, strictly speaking, has no concern in the matter, even though the death of B results. The reason for this
is that A does not become a danger to society and its institutions until he becomes a person with a corrupt
mind.
The mere discharge of the gun and the death of B do not of themselves make him so. With those two facts
must go the corrupt intent to kill. In the case at bar, however, the evil to society and to the Government does
not depend upon the state of mind of the one who displays the banner, but upon the effect which that display
has upon the public mind. In the one case the public is affected by the intention of the actor; in the other by
the act itself." (U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 129)
When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that the act is injurious to public
welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid defenses in crimes punished by special
laws.
It does not matter, for the validity of the conviction of Ongsod, that he is the owner or borrower, as the
proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing whatsoever on his guilt, within the intendment and
purview of Republic Act 4 (which amended Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code and
Commonwealth Act 56). And it is now beyond question that mere unlicensed possession is sufficient to sustain
a conviction of illegal possession of firearms, regardless of the intent of the unlicensed holder, since the
offense is malum prohibitum punished by special law, and good faith and absence of criminal intent are not
valid defenses. (People vs. Orquijo, [C.A.] 60 O.G. 836)
(See: Lacson, Jr. vs. Posadas, Adm.
Matter No. 74-MJ, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 168, 171)
Exceptions:
1. Several PC soldiers went to the house of the defendant and asked him if he had in his possession any
unlicensed
56
in connection with the drive of the government in the collection of loose firearms. Defendant told the PC
soldiers that he bought the firearm from a stranger with the purpose of selling it to the PC who were paying
for loose firearms. He even showed to the PC soldiers a letter of the town mayor authorizing him to collect
loose firearms in his barrio.
Held: To implement the policy of the government on loose firearms, it is imperative that the persons
collecting and surrendering loose firearms should have temporary and incidental possession thereof, for how
can one collect and deliver without temporarily laying his hands on the firearms? It is for this reason that we
believe that the doctrine of the immateriality of animus possidendi should be relaxed in a certain way.
Otherwise, the avowed purpose of the government's policy cannot be realized. Of course, it would be a
different story if it is shown that the possessor has held on to the firearm for an undue length of time when he
had all the chances to surrender it to the proper authorities. (People vs. Landicho, [C.A.] 55 O.G. 842)
2. When neither of the accused had ever intended to commit the offense of illegal possession of firearms (U.S.
vs. Samson, 16 Phil. 323); when both believed in good faith that as civilian guards under Councilor Asa, an
MIS agent and a superior officer in the Civilian Guard Organization, and under the circumstances and facts
of this case, they cannot be held liable for the offense charged because they never had any intent of violating
the law. (People vs. Asa and Balbastro, [C.A.] 50 O.G. 5853, citing 68 Corpus Juris 39)
3.
FELONIES Art. 3
firearm. The defendant readily answered that he had one but that said unlicensed firearm was in his
possession prior to his turning it over to the Mayor of Taal
Where the accused had a pending application for permanent permit to possess a firearm, and whose
possession was not unknown to an agent of the law who advised the former to keep it in the meantime, any
doubt as to his claim should be resolved in his favor. (People vs. Mallari, [C.A.]
55 O.G. 1394)
57
106 N.Y., 321, cited in the case of U.S. vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 132)
Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy, as in illegal
possession of firearms.
(People vs. Conosa, C.A., 45 O.G. 3953)
(2) The term mala in se r efers generally to felonies denned
Where appellant was duly appointed as civilian confidential agent entrusted with a mission to make
surveillance and effect the killing or capture of a wanted person, and was authorized to carry a revolver to
carry out his mission, he is not criminally liable for illegal possession of firearms. (People vs. Lucero, 103 Phil.
500)
Note: I n these cases, the accused had no license to possess the firearms, but in view of the facts and
circumstances, the absence of intent to violate the law was considered in favor of the accused.
Mala in se a nd mala prohibita, d
istinguished.
There is a distinction between crimes which are mala in se, or wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape,
homicide, etc., and those that are mala prohibita, or wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as
illegal possession of firearms.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation
of its members; while crimes mala prohibita a re violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society. (Bouvier's
and penalized by the Revised Penal Code. When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, e ven if
punished by special laws. On the other hand, there are crimes in the Revised Penal Code which were
originally defined and penalized by special laws. Among them are possession and use of opium, malversation,
brigandage, and libel.
The term mala prohibita refers generally to acts made criminal by special laws.
58
Art. 3 FELONIES
4.
Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)
(1) In acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in those mala prohibita, t he only inquiry is, has the law been
violated? (People vs. Kibler,
FELONIES Art. 3
When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, e ven if punished under special
law.
People vs. Sunico, et al.
(C.A.,
50 O.G. 5880)
Facts: T he accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the
names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct. Several voters were omitted in
the list. Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were
prosecuted for violation of Sees.
101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.
The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the
serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum
prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal
intent to be punishable.
Held: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita — they are mala per se. T
he omission or failure
to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it is prohibited; it is wrong per
se b ecause it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his fundamental rights. Hence, for such act to be
punishable, it must be shown that it has been committed with malice. There is no clear showing in the instant
case that the accused intentionally, willfully and maliciously omitted or failed to include in the registry list of
voters the names of those voters. They cannot be punished criminally.
The Revised Election Code, as far as its penal provisions are concerned, is a special law,
it being not a part of the Revised Penal Code or its amendments.
Intent distinguished from motive.
Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to effect such result.
Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purposes of conviction.
(People vs. Aposaga, No. L-32477, Oct. 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 574, 595)
An extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of
committing it. Or, the
59
214-215; People vs. Mandapat, G.R. No. 76953, April 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 157, 165)
Where the defendant admits the killing, it is no longer necessary to inquire into his motive for doing the act.
(People vs. Arcilla,
G.R. No. L-11792,
June 30, 1959)
Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the killing.
(People vs. Boholst- Caballero, No. L-23249, Nov. 25,1974,
People vs. Lim,
G.R. No. 86454, Oct. 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 706, 714-715; People vs. Tabije, No. L-36099, 113 SCRA 191, 197)
Where the identification of the accused proceeds from an unreliable source and the testimony is inconclusive
and not free from doubt, evidence of motive is necessary. (People vs. Beltran, No. L-31860,
No. L- 32276, Sept. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 136, 160)
Motive is essential only when there is doubt as to the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when the
accused has been positively identified. (People vs. Gadiana, G.R. No. 92509, March 13,1991,195
SCRA 211,
FELONIES
Art. 3
apparent lack of a motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there is none, but that
simply it is not known to us, for we cannot probe into the depths of one's conscience where it may be found,
hidden away and inaccessible to our observation. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 256)
One may be convicted of a crime whether his motive appears to be good or bad or even though no motive is
proven. A good motive does not prevent an act from being a crime. In mercy killing, the painless killing of a
patient who has no chance of recovery, the motive may be good, but it is nevertheless punished by law.
Motive, when relevant and when need not be established.
Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the motive that may have
impelled its commission is very relevant. (People vs. Murray, 105 Phil. 591, 598; People vs. Feliciano, No.
L-30307, Aug. 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 383, 393)
Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the crime has
been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing. (People vs. Alviar,
Nov. 29, 1974, 61 SCRA 246, 254-255)
60
61 SCRA 180,191;
107 Phil. 44, 49)
While the question of motive is important to the person who committed the criminal act, yet when there is no
longer any doubt that the defendant was the culprit, it becomes unimportant to know the exact reason or
purpose for the commission of the crime. (People vs. Feliciano, No. L-30307, Aug. 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 383,
393)
How motive is proved.
Generally, the motive is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused
before or immediately after the commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the motive.
(Barrioquinto
proof of motive is essential. (People vs. Oquifio,
)
Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence. (People vs.
Corpuz,
FELONIES Art. 3
Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons,
motive is relevant and significant. (People vs. Melgar, No. L-75268, Jan. 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 718, 725)
If the evidence is merely circumstantial,
SCRA 797,808
vs. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642, 649)
Motive proved by the evidence.
Appellant stabbed the deceased. It was established that there were two suffocating smokes noticed during the
progress of the re- ligious service of the Iglesia ni Cristo,
which made appellant to go around. Certainly, the causing.of
those smokes, presumably by non- members, which disturbed and interrupted the service, particularly at the
time when the Minister was preaching, is enough motive for any member of the sect to be offended thereby,
particularly appellant who was a member of some importance. (People vs. Ramirez, 104 Phil. 720, 726)
Disclosure of the motive is an aid in completing the proof of the commission of the crime.
Thus, the fact that the accused had been losing in their business operations indicated the motive and therefore
the intent to commit arson for the purpose of collecting the insurance on their stock of merchandise. (U.S. vs.
Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 187, 204)
61
No. L-37483, June 24,1983,122
107 Phil. 188, 194)
Even a strong motive to commit the crime cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt, sufficient
to overthrow the presumption of innocence. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the mainstay of our
accusatorial system of criminal justice. (People vs. Pisalvo,
No. L-32886, Oct. 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 211, 226)
Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the innocence of the accused.
In a case, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he
was charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.
Under the special circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the defendant's own wife whom he
dearly loved, and taking into consideration the fact that the defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose
house and under whose protection he lived, besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he
himself invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find not only lack of motives for the
defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not committing said acts.
(People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255, 257)
Lack of motive to kill the deceased has been held as further basis for acquitting the accused, where the lone
testimony of the prosecution witness is contrary to common experience and, therefore, incredible. (People vs.
Padirayon, No. L-39207, Sept. 25, 1975, 67 SCRA 135)
62
FELONIES
Art. 3
But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support a conviction.
The existence of a motive, though perhaps an important consideration, is not sufficient proof of guilt. (People
vs. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468; People vs. Martinez y Godinez,
106 Phil. 597) Mere proof of motive, no matter how strong, is not sufficient to support a conviction if there is
no reliable evidence from which it may be reasonably deduced that the accused was the malefactor. (People
vs. Macatahgay,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Wrongful Act Different
Art. 4
From That Intended
riminal liability shall be incurred:
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — C
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) a lthough 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.
Application of Article 4.
Criminal liability is incurred by any person in the cases mentioned in the two paragraphs of Article 4. This
article has no reference to the manner criminal liability is incurred. The manner of incurring criminal
liability under the Revised Penal Code is stated in Article 3, that is, performing or failing to do an act, when
either is punished by law, by means of deceit (with malice) or fault (through negligence or imprudence).
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Ordinarily, when a person commits a felony with malice, h e intends the consequences of his felonious act. But
there are cases where the consequences of the felonious act of the offender are not intended b y him. In those
cases, "the wrongful act done"
is "different from that which he intended."
In view of paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences
of his felonious act are not intended by him.
Thus, where the death of the 6 year-old victim was brought about by the rape committed by the accused, it is
of no moment that she died by accident when she hit her head on the pavement while struggling, because,
having performed an act constituting a felony, he is responsible for all the consequences of said act, regardless
of his intention. (People vs. Mario Mariano, 75 O.G. 4802, No. 24, June 11, 1979)
63
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
Wrongful Act Different From That Intended
One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one's illegal acts, merely because
one does not intend to produce such consequences. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310)
Thus, one who fired his gun at B, but missed and hit C instead, is liable for the injury caused to C, although
the one who fired the gun had no intention to injure C
.
One who gave a fist blow on the head of D, causing the latter to fall with the latter's head striking a hard
pavement, is liable for the death of D,
which resulted although the one who gave the fist blow had no intention to kill D.
And one who stabbed another in the dark, believing that the latter was E, when in fact he was G, is liable for
the injury caused to G, although the one who stabbed him had no intention to injure G.
Rationale of rule in paragraph 1 of Article 4.
The rationale of the rule in Article 4 is found in the doctrine that "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
(he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). (People vs. Ural, No. L-30801,
March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 138, 144)
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF ART. 4.
1. "Committing a felony."
Paragraph 1 of Art. 4 says that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person "committing a felony," not
merely performing an act. A felony is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code. If the act is
not punishable by the Code, it is not a felony.
But the felony committed by the offender should be one committed by means of dolo, that is, with malice,
because paragraph 1 of Art. 4 speaks of wrongful act done "different from that which he intended.
"
If the wrongful act results from the imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill of the offender,
his liability should be determined under Art. 365, which defines and penalizes criminal negligence.
The act or omission should not be punished by a special law, because the offender violating a special law may
not have the intent to do an injury to another. In such case, the wrongful
64
causado"
is not applicable in this case.
Defendant, who was not a regular medical practitioner, tied a girl, wrapped her feet with rags saturated with
petroleum and thereafter set them on fire causing injuries. His defense was that he undertook to render
medical assistance in good faith and to the best of his ability to cure her of ulcer. He admitted applying
petroleum but denied causing the burns. Held: W hile there was no intention to cause an evil but to provide a
remedy, accused was liable for injuries thru imprudence. (U.S. vs. Divino,
physical injuries through imprudence; and (2) illegal practice of medicine.
When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally liable for the result which is
not intended.
(a) Thus, one who, because of curiosity, snatched the bolo
Art. 4
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Wrongful Act Different From That Intended
act done could not be different, as the offender did not intend to do any other injury.
Article 4, paragraph 1,
caught the blade of said bolo in trying to retain it, is not criminally liable for the physical injuries caused,
because there is no provision in the Revised Penal Code which punishes that act of snatching the property of
another just to satisfy curiosity. (See U.S. vs. Villanueva, 31 Phil. 412)
(b) Thus, also, one who tries to retain the possession of his bolo which was being taken by another and
because of the struggle, the tip of the bolo struck and pierced the breast of a bystander, is not criminally
liable therefor, because the law allows a person to use the necessary force to retain what belongs to him. (See
People vs. Bindoy, 56 Phil. 15)
People vs. Bindoy (56 Phil. 15)
Facts: I n a tuba w
ineshop in the barrio market, the accused offered tuba t o Pacas'
12 Phil. 175)
Note: D efendant did not commit an intentional felony. If at all, he committed illegal practice of medicine,
which is punished by a special law. Violation of a statute is proof of negligence or imprudence. Defendant is
liable for two offenses: (1)
carried by the offended party at his belt, and the latter instinctively
wife; and as she refused to drink having already
65
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
done so, the accused threatened to injure her if she would not accept. There ensued an interchange of words
between her and the accused, and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take away from the
accused the bolo he carried. This occasioned a disturbance which attracted the attention of Emigdio
Omamdam who lived near the market. Emigdio left his house to see what was happening, while the accused
and Pacas were struggling for the bolo. In the course of this struggle, the accused succeeded in disengaging
himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo f rom the latter's hand towards the left behind the accused, with such
violence that the point of the bolo reached Emigdio Omamdam's chest, who was then behind the accused. The
accused was not aware of Omamdam's presence in the place.
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused injured the deceased deliberately and with the intention
of committing a crime. He was only defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying to wrench
away from him, and his conduct was perfectly legal. The accused should be acquitted.
Had the accused attempted to wound Pacas during the struggle, but instead of doing so, he wounded
Omamdam, he would have been liable for the death of Omamdam, because in attempting to wound another,
the accused would be committing a felony, which is attempted homicide, if there is intent to kill, under Art.
249 in relation to Art. 6.
2. "Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended."
The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are: (1)
mistake in the identity of the victim; (2) mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on another; and (3) the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious
result is greater than that intended.
Under paragraph 1,
Art. 4, a person committing a felony is still criminally liable even if —
a. There is a mistake in the identity of the victim — error in
personae. (See the case of People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)
In a case, defendant went out of the house with the intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the
evening, defendant mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him
66
April 30, 1985, 136 SCRA 238, the conduct of the wife of the accused aroused his ire and
67
Art. 4
a mortal wound with a bolo. In this case, the defendant is criminally liable for the death of Mapudul. (People
vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605)
b. There is a mistake in the blow — aberratio ictus.
Example: People vs. Mabugat, 5 1 Phil. 967, where the accused, having discharged his firearm at Juana Buralo
but because of lack of precision, hit and seriously wounded Perfecta
.
Example: People vs. Cagoco, 5 8 Phil. 524, where the accused, without intent to kill, struck the victim with his
fist on the back part of the head from behind, causing the victim to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt
pavement and resulting in the fracture of his head, it was held that the accused was liable for the death of the
victim, although he had no intent to kill said victim.
People vs. Mabugat (51 Phil. 967)
Facts: T he accused and Juana Buralo were sweethearts. One day, the accused invited Juana to take a walk
with him, but the latter refused him on account of the accused having frequently visited the house of another
woman. Later on, the accused went to the house of Cirilo
Buralo, it was held that the accused was liable for the injury caused to the latter.
c.
Bayan where Juana had gone to take part in some devotion. There the accused, revolver in hand, waited until
Juana and her niece, Perfecta, came downstairs. When they went in the direction of their house, the accused
followed them. As the two girls were going upstairs, the accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway,
fired a shot from his revolver at Juana but which wounded Perfecta, the slug passing through a part of her
neck, having entered the posterior region thereof and coming out through the left eye.
Perfecta did not die due to proper medical attention.
Held: The accused is guilty of frustrated murder, qualified by treachery, committed on the person of Perfecta
Buralo.
In People vs. Tomotorgo,
The injurious result is greater than that intended — praeter intentionem
No. L-47941,
No. L-36282, Dec. 10, 1976, 74 SCRA 263, where it was held that the case is covered by Article 4 of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended, because the maltreatment inflicted
by the accused on his wife was the proximate cause of her death. The accused in his inebriated state had no
intent to kill her. He was infuriated because his son did not feed his carabao. He was provoked to castigate his
wife because she prevented him from whipping his negligent son. He could have easily killed his wife had he
really intended to take her life. He did not kill her outright,
(p. 269)
Requisites of paragraph 1 of Art. 4.
In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different f rom that which he intended to
commit, the following requisites must be present:
a. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender. (U.S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil. 310, 319; U.S. vs. Mallari,
29 Phil. 14, 19)
That a felony has been committed.
Thus, in the cases of U.S. vs. Villanueva
and People vs. Bindoy, supra, the accused were not held criminally liable, because they were not committing a
felony when they caused the injury to another.
68
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
incensed with wrath and his anger beyond control, he picked up a piece of wood and started hitting his wife
with it until she fell to the ground complaining of severe chest pains. Realizing what he had done, he picked
her up in his arms and brought her home. Despite his efforts to alleviate her pains, the wife died. Prosecuted
for parricide, he pleaded guilty and was allowed to establish mitigating circumstances.
Passing on his contentions, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the appellant intended to maltreat his
wife only or inflict physical injuries does not exempt him from liability for the resulting and more serious
crime of parricide,
(pp. 242, 246)
To the same effect is People vs. Monleon,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Wrongful
Art. 4
Act Different From That Intended
No felony is committed (1) when the act or omission is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code, or
(2) when the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
An act which is not punishable by the Revised Penal Code is attempting to commit suicide. (Art. 253)
Therefore, if A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out of the window to kill himself, but when he dropped to the
ground he fell on an old woman who died as a consequence, A is not criminally liable for intentional
homicide. A was not committing a felony when he attempted a suicide.
One who shoots at another in self-defense, defense of relative, defense of a stranger, or in the fulfillment of
duty is not committing a felony, the act being justified. (Art. 11, Revised Penal Code)
Hence, if B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him, fired his pistol at the latter in self-defense, but
missed him and instead hit and killed D, a bystander, B is not criminally liable for the death of D. One acting
in self-defense is not committing a felony.
A policeman, who was pursuing to arrest an armed prisoner who had just escaped from jail, fired his service
pistol at the latter when he refused to be captured. The slug fired from the pistol of the policeman, after
hitting the prisoner on his right leg, hit and seriously injured a passer-by. The policeman is not criminally
liable for the injury caused to the passer-by, because being in the fulfillment of a duty he was not committing
a felony.
Of course, the act of defense or fulfillment of duty must be exercised with due care; otherwise, the accused
will be liable for culpable felony.
People vs. Salinas (C.A., 62 O.G. 3186)
Facts: I n the afternoon of February 14, 1958, the three accused, namely: Saturnino Salinas, Crisanto Salinas
and Francisco Salinas, together with two small boys by the name of Tony and Omong,
went to the place of Severino Aquino to get their horses which the latter caught for having destroyed his corn
plants. When Crisanto and the two boys were already inside the house of Severino Aquino, Crisanto asked,
with signs of respect and in a nice way, Severino Aquino what had the horses
69
hemorrhage within the skull due to injury of the blood vessels in the parietal side of the head due to an impact
with a hard object."
Held: The accepted rule is that an offender is always liable for the consequences of his criminal act even
though the result be different from what he intended. (Art. 4, Revised Penal Code) For such liability to exist,
two requisites are necessary, namely, (1) that a crime be committed, and (2) that the wrong suffered by the
injured party be a direct consequence of the crime committed by the offender. Under the circumstances, it
cannot be said that Crisanto Salinas, in his efforts to prevent Severino from going down the house to have
bloody encounter with his father who was in the yard, by taking hold of Severino and pulling or jerking the
right hand of Mercuria who tried to free her father from his hold, committed or was committing a crime.
Consequently, it cannot likewise be said that the death of the child was the direct result of a crime which
Crisanto committed or was in the act of committing.
Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the
latter to do something resulting in the latter's
injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries.
During a robbery in a passenger jeepney, one of the culprits told the women passengers "to bring out their
money and not to shout 'or
Art. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Wrongful Act Different
One else there will be shots.'"
of the women jumped out of the jeepney. Her head struck the pavement. She died as a consequence.
destroyed. Thereafter, Saturnino
Salinas who was at that time in front of the house of Severino Aquino in the yard told Severino Aquino to
come down from the house and he (Saturnino) will bolo him to pieces. Upon hearing the words of Saturnino
Salinas, Severino Aquino was about to go downstairs but Crisanto held him on his waist. In his struggle to
free himself from the hold of Crisanto, he (Severino) moved his body downwards thus Crisanto subsequently
held Severino's neck. At the moment Crisanto was holding Severino's neck, Mercuria
Aquino who was then sitting on a mat inside the said house stood up and, carrying her one month old child
Jaime Tibule with her left hand and against her breast, approached Severino and Crisanto. Upon reaching by
the left side of Crisanto, Mercuria tried, with her right hand, to remove the hand of Crisanto which held the
neck of Severino but Crisanto pulled Mercuria's right hand causing said Mercuria to fall down over her child
Jaime Tibule on the floor of the house and Jaime Tibule was pinned on the floor by Mercuria's body.
The cause of death (of Jaime Tibule) was "internal
From That Intended
70
Art. 4
It was held that "if
a man creates in another person's mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes such person to try to
escape, and, in so doing, the latter injures himself, the man who creates such a state of mind is responsible for
the resulting injuries." (People vs. Page, 77 SCRA 348, 355, citing People vs. Toling, L-27097, Jan. 17, 1975,
62 SCRA 17, 33)
The reason for the ruling is that when the culprit demanded money from the women, threatening to shoot if
they would not bring out their money, a felony was being committed (i.e., a t that stage of execution, attempted
robbery with intimidation which is punishable under Article 294, in relation to Article 6 and Article 51 of the
Code). The Toling case, supra, relying on U.S. vs. Valdez,
41 Phil. 497, quoted the syllabus, thus: "if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed reasonably
believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water,
impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for homicide in case death results by
drowning."
Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act.
It is an established rule that a person is criminally responsible for acts committed by him in violation of the
law and for all the natural a nd logical c onsequences resulting therefrom. (U.S. vs. Sornito, 4 Phil. 357, 360;
U.S. vs. Zamora,
32 Phil. 218, 226; People vs. Cornel, 78 Phil. 458, 261)
In the following cases, the
wrong done is considered the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed, although
a. The victim who was threatened o r chased by the accused with a knife, j umped into the water and because of
the strong current or because he did not know how to swim he sank down and died of drowning. (U.S. vs.
Valdez, 41 Phil. 497; People vs. Buhay, 79 Phil. 372)
b. The victim removed the drainage from the wound which resulted in the development of peritonitis which in
turn caused his death, it appearing that the wound caused by the accused produced extreme pain and
restlessness which
71
Art. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
72
62 Phil. 162)
c.
made the victim remove it. (People vs. Quianson,
Other causes cooperated i n producing the fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
calculated to destroy or endanger life. This is true even though the immediate cause of the death was
erroneous o r unskillful medical or surgical treatment. This rule surely seems to have its foundation in a wise
and practical policy. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human
life a salutary and essential safeguard. Amid the conflicting theories of medical men, and the uncertainties
attendant upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries, it would be easy in many cases of homicide to
raise a doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby to open wide the door by which persons guilty
of the highest crime might escape conviction and punishment. (13 R.C.L., 751, 752; 22 L.R.A., New Series,
841, cited in People vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 4)
But where it clearly appears that the injury would not have caused death, i n the ordinary course of events, but
would have healed in so many days and where it is shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the
malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a third person, the accused is not liable for homicide. One
is accountable only for his own acts and their natural or logical consequences, and not for those which bear no
relation t o the initial cause and are due, for instance, to the mistakes committed by the doctor in the surgical
operation and the treatment of the victim's wound. (Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain, April 2,1903,
cited by Viada)
d. The victim was suffering from internal malady.
Blow was efficient cause of death.
The deceased had a delicate constitution and was suffering from tuberculosis.
The accused gave fist blows on the deceased's right hypochondrium, bruising the liver and producing internal
hemorrhage, resulting in the death of the victim. The accused was liable for homicide. (People vs. Illustre, 54
Phil. 594)
Art. 4
Blow accelerated death.
The deceased was suffering from internal malady. The accused gave fist blows in the back and abdomen,
producing inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis, and causing death. The accused was liable for
homicide, because by his fist blows he produced the cause for the acceleration o f the death of the deceased.
(People vs. Rodriquez,
23 Phil. 22)
Blow was proximate cause of death.
The deceased was suffering from heart disease. The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife, but as the
blade of the knife hit a bone, it did not penetrate the thoracic cavity, but it produced shock, resulting in the
death of the victim. The accused was liable for homicide, because the stabbing was the proximate cause of the
death of the deceased. (People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil. 341)
e. The offended party refused to submit to surgical
operation.
The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural and
ordinary results of his crime. (U.S. vs. Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504)
f. The resulting injury was aggravated by infection.
(1) The accused wounded the offended party with a bolo. When the offended party entered the hospital, no
anti-tetanus injection was given to him and the wounds became infected when he went out of the hospital.
Held: The accused is responsible for the duration of the treatment and disability prolonged by the infection.
(People vs. Red, C.A., 43 O.G. 5072) An accused is liable for all the consequences of his
acts, and the infection
of a wound he has caused is one of the consequences for which he is answerable.
9 (People vs. Martir,
C.A. Rep. 204)
But the infection should not be due to the malicious act of the offended party. (U.S. vs. De los
Santos, G.R. No. L-13309
) 73
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
Wrongful Act Different
(62 Phil. 162)
Facts: T he accused took hold of a fireband and applied it to the neck of the person who was pestering him.
The victim also received from the hand of the accused a wound in his abdomen below the navel. While
undergoing medical treatment, the victim took out the drainage from his wound and as a result of the
peritonitis that developed, he died. The accused claimed as a defense that had not the deceased taken out the
drainage, he would not have died.
Held: Death was the natural consequence of the mortal wound inflicted. The victim, in removing the drainage
from his wound, did not do so voluntarily and with knowledge that it was prejudicial to his health. The act of
the victim (removing the drainage from his wound) was attributed to his pathological condition and state of
nervousness and restlessness on account of physical pain caused by the wound, aggravated by the contact of
the drainage tube with the inflamed peritoneum.
U.S. vs. Marasigan (27 Phil. 504, 506)
Facts: T he accused drew his knife and struck at Mendoza. In attempting to ward off the blow, Mendoza was
cut in the left hand. The extensor tendon in one of the fingers was severed. As a result, the middle finger of
the left hand was rendered useless.
Held: Nor do we attach any importance to the contention of the accused that the original condition of the
finger could be restored by
74
From That Intended
(2) Although the wounds might have been cured sooner than 58 days had the offended party not been
addicted to tuba drinking, this fact does not mitigate the liability of the accused. (U.S. vs. Bayutas, 31 Phil.
584)
(3)
The accused attacked the deceased with a bolo. After the deceased had fallen, the accused threw a stone
which hit him on the right clavicle. The wounds inflicted could not have caused the death of the deceased. A
he accused is responsible for
week later, the deceased died of tetanus secondary to the infected wound. Held: T
the death of the deceased. (People vs. Cornel, 78 Phil. 418)
People vs. Quianson
43 SCRA 526, 532)
Facts: T he accused stabbed the victim with an ice pick. The victim was brought to the hospital where a
surgical operation was performed upon him.
Although the operation was successful and the victim seemed to be in the process of recovery, he developed,
five (5) days later, a paralytic ileum — which takes place, sometimes, in consequence of the exposure of the
internal organs during the operation — and then died.
Held: It is contended that the immediate cause of the death of the victim was a paralysis of the ileum that
supervened five (5) days after the stabbing, when he appeared to be on the way to full recovery. It has been
established, however, that the exposure of the internal organs in consequence of a surgical operation in the
abdomen sometimes results in a paralysis of the ileum and that said operation had to be performed on
account of the abdominal injury inflicted by the accused. The accused is responsible for the natural
consequences of his own acts.
The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred." (Bataclan vs.
Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, quoting 38 Am. Jur. 695)
Moreover, a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. "Natural"
refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events, while "logical" means that there is a
rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage. The felony committed
must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occured. The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing
75
Art. 4
a surgical operation. Mendoza is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural a nd ordinary r esults of his crime. It was his voluntary act which disabled Mendoza and he must abide
by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid from Mendoza.
People vs. Reloj
(L-31335,
Feb. 29,1972,
patologica del lesionado);
the predisposition of the offended party (la constitucion fisica
or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors (la falta
de medicos para sister al herido); or the conditions supervening the felonies act such as tetanus, pulmonary
infection or gangrene.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
a) there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the vic-
tim.
If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to put life in jeopardy and death
follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its crimi- nality to prove
that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of
the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. A different
doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and take away from human life a salutary and essential
safeguard. (Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. No. 155791, March 16, 2005)
How to determine the proximate cause.
At about 2:00 o'clock in the morning while the bus was running very fast on a highway, one of the front tires
burst and the vehicle began to zigzag until it fell into a canal and turned turtle. Four of its passengers could
not get out of the overturned bus. It appeared that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak from the
tank on the
76
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate prodecessor.
There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being the felonious act of the offended, the effect
being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim. The "cause and effect" relationship is not altered or
changed because of the pre-existing conditions,
such as the pathological condition of the victim (las condiciones
del herido);
Art. 4
side of the chassis, spreading over and permeating the body of the bus and the ground under and around it.
About ten men, one of them carrying a lighted torch, approached the overturned bus to help those left
therein, and almost immediately a fierce fire started, burning the four passengers trapped inside it.
What
is the proximate cause of the death of the four passengers, the negligence of the driver resulting in the fall into
the canal and overturning of the bus, or the fire that burned the bus?
"x x x. It may be that ordinarily, when a passenger bus overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing
him physical injuries, if through some event, unexpected and extraordinary, the overturned bus is set on fire,
say, by lightning, or if some highwaymen after looting the vehicle set it on fire, and the passenger is burned to
death, one might still contend that the proximate cause of his death was the fire and not the overturning of
the vehicle. But in the present case and under the circumstances obtaining in the same, we do not hesitate to
hold that the proximate cause of the death o f x x x (the four passengers) was the overturning of the bus, t his for
the reason that when the vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the
gasoline from the tank was not unnatural or unexpected; that the coming of the men with a lighted torch was
in response to the call for help, made not only by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the
conductor themselves, and that because it was very dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to
carry a light with them; and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not
available, they had to use a torch, the most handy and available; and what was more natural than that said
rescuers should innocently approach the overturned vehicle to extend the aid and effect the rescue requested
from them. In other words, the coming of the men with the torch was to be expected and was a natural
sequence of the overturning of the bus,
the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for outside help. What is more, the burning of the bus can
also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier, through its driver and its conductor. According to
the witnesses,
the driver and the conductor were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least, the driver should
and must have known that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have
leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus, this aside from the fact that
gasoline when
77
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
Wrongful
Act Different From That Intended
spilled, specially over a large area, can be smelt and detected even from a distance, and yet neither the driver
nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted
torch too near the bus." That is negligence on the part of the agents of the carrier. (Vda. de Bataclan, et al. vs.
Medina, 102 Phil. 181, 186, 187)
People vs. Luces (C.A.-G.R.
July 15, 1955)
Facts: A ccused Ramon Luces gave a fist blow on the stomach of Feliciana, causing her to fall unconscious.
She never regained consciousness and a few minutes thereafter she died. In the autopsy report, it was found
that the probable cause of death was cardiac failure. The accused contended that the fist blow was not the
proximate cause of Feliciana's death.
Held: Whether Feliciana died as a direct effect of the fist blow, or as an outcome of the fall that followed the
blow, or as a consequence of the blow and the fall that caused her to lose consciousness, or of heart failure due
to shock caused by the blow and her fall to the ground, the result would be the same — that the blow was the
primary and proximate cause of her death.
The gravity of the crime does not depend on the more or less violent means used, but on the result and
consequence of the same and if the accused had not ill-treated t he deceased she would not have died. Known is
the Latin maxim that "he
who is the cause of the cause, is the cause of the evil caused."
Note: I ll-treating another by deed without causing any injury, is a felony under Art. 266 of this Code.
In the case of People vs. Martin, 89 Phil. 18, the accused, who strangled his wife then suffering from heart
disease, was found guilty of parricide even if the death of his wife was the result of heart failure, because the
heart failure was due to the fright or shock caused by the strangling, which is a felony.
The following are not efficient intervening causes:
1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart
disease. (People vs. Illustre and People vs. Reyes, supra)
78
No. 13011-R,
Art. 4
2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an internal
hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders, because of his nervous condition due to
the wound inflicted by the accused. (People vs. Almonte, 56 Phil. 54; See also People vs. Quianson,
62 Phil. 162)
3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim, and (b) the victim
rinking. (People vs. Buhay and U.S. vs. Valdez, supra; U
being addicted to tuba d .S. vs. Bayutas, supra)
4. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical attendance or
surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the injured person. (U.S. vs.
Marasigan and People vs. Red, supra)
5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in an outlying barrio
where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1)
eing
Those causes, not b
o not break the relation of cause and effect — the felony committed and the re-
efficient intervening causes, d
sulting injury.
People vs. Piamonte,
et al. (94 Phil. 293)
Facts: O ne of the accused stabbed the injured party with a hunting knife on October 28, 1951. The injured
party was taken to the hospital and was operated on. The operation did him well, but on December 19, 1951,
he contracted a sickness known as mucous colitis which developed because of his weak condition. He died on
December 28,1951
.
Is the accused who stabbed the injured party liable for the latter's death? Held: The doctors who attended the
injured party agreed that his weakened

condition which caused disturbance in the functions of his intestines
hich shows that while the wounds inflicted were not the
made it possible for him to contract mucous colitis, w
immediate cause, they were however the proximate cause of death. This is enough to make the accused
responsible for the crime charged.
79
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 4
he charge was robbery with homicide. The homicide was committed with malice.
Note: T
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted.
The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, when the
following facts are established
:
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were
inflicted was in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical injuries
inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time. (People vs.
Datu Baginda,
C.A., 44 O.G. 2287)
It having been established that the boy Jundam
was in good health on the morning of the incident; that he was whipped, spanked and thrown against the post
by his teacher, his breast hitting it; that he complained to his mother about the oppressive pain, crying and
massaging his breast all the time; that he was found to have two suspicious bluish spots — a big one on the
breast and another one on the upper left arm; and that he vomitted blood until he died three days afterwards;
and there being no proof of any intervening cause, the liability of the teacher for homicide necessarily follows
from the premises stated. (People vs. Tammang, 5 C.A. Rep. 145)
Note: H ad it been proved, as claimed by the defense, that the boy died of hydrophobia, that would have
constituted an intervening cause, and the accused would have been acquitted.
Not direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed.
If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign f rom the criminal act,
the offender is not responsible for such consequences. (People vs. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038)
80

The Revised Penal Code BOOK 1 Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Revised Penal Code BOOK 1 Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Revised Penal Code BOOK 1 Luis B. Reyes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law, defined.

Extent of Philippine territory for purposes of criminal law.

Exceptions to the territorial application of criminal law.

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit

III. PROSPECTIVE, in that a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a

tried under the old law.

cannot be convicted under the new law.

THE REVISED PENAL CODE

codification of all penal laws

DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Art 1 ​REVISED PENAL CODE

Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of homicide

Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed on

APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2

Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.

Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board

Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372.

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit ​(dolo)

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 3.

Meaning of the word "act."

Example of felony by performing an act.

Only external act is punished.

Meaning of the word "omission."

Examples of felony by omission:

Held: ​Lopez was not accused of intentional homicide, but of having

injured party agreed that his weakened

You might also like

DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Art 1 REVISED PENAL CODE

Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo)

Held: Lopez was not accused of intentional homicide, but of having