A.

Classification of Felonies

Definition of Terms
1. Crime - an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
It is a generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished by either the RPC or a special law.
2. Felony – crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
3. Offense – crime punishable under special laws.
4. Misdemeanor - minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance.

How committed
Art. 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

GENERAL ELEMENTS OF FELONIES:

a. An act or omission
1. Act – Any kind of body movement which tends to produce some effect in the
external world; includes possession
2. Omission – The failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do under
the law. It is important that there is a law requiring the performance of an act; if
there is no positive duty, there is no liability.
a. Misprision of Treason (Art 116) – Failure to report knowledge of treason
despite allegiance to the Philippines
b. Disloyalty of Public Officers (Art 137) – Failure of Public Officers to act
properly upon a rebellion
c. Prosecution of Offenses; negligence and tolerance (Art 208) – Maliciously
refraining from prosecuting violators of law
d. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art 223) – Failure to act on the
responsibility to take charge of a prisoner
e. Refusal to Discharge Elective Office (Art 234) – Refusal to discharge one’s duties
f. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim –
Failure to render assistance when required by law to do so
g. PD 1153 – Requiring the planting of one tree every month for five consecutive
years by every citizen of the Philippines

b. Comitted by means of:

1. Dolo (i.e. willfully) or
2. Culpa (i.e. negligently)

c. Punished by the Code

Classifications:
1. According to manner of commission
2. According to nature
3. According to stages of execution
4. According to gravity of penalties
5. According to plurality of crimes

i. According to Manner of Commission

A. INTENTIONAL FELONIES (Dolo)

Crime committed with deliberate intent

Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea

An act does not make a defendant guilty without a guilty mind. [REYES]
Mens rea
A guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent, and essential for criminal liability.
[People v Valenzuela, G.R. No. 160188 (2007)]

Requirements of Dolo or Malice [FID]:

1. Freedom – Voluntariness on the part of the person who commits the act or omission.
2. Intelligence – Capacity to know and understand the consequences of one’s act.
3. Dolo – Intent to commit the act with malice is a purely mental process, and is presumed from
the proof of the commission of an unlawful act. Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom
and the use of intelligence. [REYES, Book 1]

Degree of proof
In these cases when intent has to be proven, the law requires proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the existence of malicious intent or dolus malus before an accused can be
adjudged liable for committing an intentional felony. [Villareal v. People, G.R. No.
151258 (2012)]
General Criminal Specific Criminal
Intent Intent

The intention to do something wrong. The intention to commit a definite act.

Presumed from the mere doing of a wrong Existence is not presumed.

act.

The burden is upon the wrongdoer to Since the specific intent is an element of the
prove that he acted without such crime, the burden is upon the prosecution
criminal intent. to establish its existence.

Examples of Crimes requiring Specific

Criminal Intent
1. Robbery – intent to gain [Art. 293[
2. Theft – intent to gain [Art. 308[
3. Homicide – intent to kill [Art. 249[
4. Forcible Abduction – intent of lewd designs [Art. 342[
Must be alleged in Information
Where the specific intent of the malefactor is determinative of the crime charged, such
specific intent must be alleged in the information and proved by the prosecution. The
specific intent of the malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal complaint is
determinative of what crime the accused is charged with. [People v. Delim, G.R. No.
142773 (2003)]

How proven
Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It may be
inferred from the circumstances of the actions of the accused as established by the evidence on
record. [People v. Delim, supra.]

Intent to commit the crime v. intent to perpetrate the act

When the statute plainly forbids an act to be done (mala prohibita), and it is done by some
person, the law conclusively implies the guilty intent, despite the honest mistake of the
offender as to the meaning of the law he violates. x x x Care must be exercised in
distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to
perpetrate the act. The accused did not consciously intend 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— intent
and all. The wording of the law is such that the intent and the act are inseparable. The act is
the crime. The accused intended to put the device in his window. Nothing more is required to
commit the crime. [U.S. v. Go Chico, G.R. No. 4963 (1909)]

Motive
It is the moving power which impels one to action to achieve a definite result [REYES, Book 1]

Motive is Not Considered as an Element

General Rule: Not an essential element of a crime
Exceptions:
1. When the act brings about variant crimes (e.g. kidnapping v. robbery [People v. Puno,
G.R. No. 97471 (1993)]
2. When identity of perpetrator is in doubt [People v. Hassan, G.R. No. L-68969 (1988)]
3. When there is the need to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic versions of the crime.
[People v. De Los Santos, G.R. No. 131588 (2001)]
4. When evidence on the commission of the crime is purely circumstantial

How motive is proven

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, deeds, or words that
may express it or from which his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred.
[Barrioquinto v. Fernandez (1949)]

MISTAKE OF FACT V. MISTAKE OF LAW

a. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Mistake of Law)
In civil actions, a difficult question of law may sometimes be considered a defense. This is
because knowledge of a legal provision does not necessarily mean knowledge of its true
meaning and scope, or of the interpretation which the courts may place upon it. [Kasilag v.
Rodriguez, G.R. No. 46623 (1939)]
In criminal actions, ignorance of the law excuses no one. Nevertheless, the lack of or a low
degree of education may be appreciated as mitigating circumstance in some instances. See
Art. 15, RPC.
b. Ignorantia facti excusat (Mistake of Fact)
A mistake of fact is a misapprehension of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or
omission which is the subject of the prosecution. It may be a defense even if the offense
charged requires proof of only general intent. [Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
120744-46 (2012); U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272 (1910)]

Application
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the
commission of a felonious act. [People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722 (1943)]. This defense
does not avail, however, when there is no intent to consider, such as in culpable felonies
and crimes mala prohibita.

Requisites of Mistake of Fact as a Defense

[LIM]:
1. The act done would have been Lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
2. 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.

B. CULPABLE FELONIES
Crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

Rationale: A man must use his common sense and exercise reflection in all his acts. It is one’s
duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, and not to expose other people’s lives and property at
risk of injury or damage. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof. [Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716 (2010)]

Requisites of Culpa [FINI]:

1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence or Imprudence

Negligence – It indicates deficiency of perception. It is the failure of a person to pay proper

attention and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused.
Often associated with lack of foresight. [REYES, Book 1]
Imprudence – It indicates deficiency of action. A person fails to take the necessary precaution to
avoid injury to another person or damage to property. Often associated with lack of skill.

Resulting harm or injury

Unless the negligent or imprudent act results in harm or injury to another, there is no criminal
liability. [REYES, Book 1]

Rule of Negative Ingredient. This rule states that:

1. The prosecution must first identify what the accused failed to do.
2. Once this is done, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused.
3. The accused must show that the failure did not set in motion the chain of events leading
to the injury [Carillo v. People, G.R. No. 86890 (1994)].
ii. According to Nature

1. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

MALA IN SE (“evil in itself”)

A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape. [Black’s Law
Dictionary, 9th Ed.]
When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under special law,
like plunder which requires proof of criminal intent.
Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

MALA PROHIBITA (“prohibited evil”) An act that is a crime merely because it is prohibited
by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed.]

General Rule: Performance of the act itself will constitute the offense. Dolo is not required
in crimes mala prohibita.
In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act alone irrespective of the intent, constitutes
the offense.
Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
Exceptions:
a. People v. Landicho [G.R. No. 116600 (1996)] – If the act is done in order to comply
with government policies.
An individual is not criminally liable despite a law prohibiting carrying of firearms if he
was authorized to buy and collect guns, then sell to authorities later on.
b. US v. Samson [G.R. No. 5807 (1910)] – Civilian guards acting in good faith in
carrying firearms with no intention of committing an offense were able to claim lack
of intent as a defense.
c. People v. Mallari [G.R. No. L-58886 (1988)] – A pending application for permanent
permit to possess a firearm, and did not hide possession of firearms in front of
authorities was also free from liability because of good faith.
d. People v. Lucero [G.R. No. 97936 (1995)]– When the accused was given
authority to carry a revolver in order to capture or kill a wanted person.
e. Cuenca v. People [G.R. No. L-27586 (1970)] – The accused had assumed that his
employer had the necessary license to possess firearm which was turned over to
him while he was on duty as one of the security guards of the licensed security
agency.

A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if the latter is a necessary
element of the felony defined in the Code; but a special law can never absorb a crime
punishable under the RPC, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious
than a violation of a special law. [People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 13981 (1960)] .
iii. According to Stages of Execution

2. According to Stages of Execution

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies – Consummated felonies as

well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or
over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.

The three stages are:

a. Attempted – When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts but does not produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance
b. Frustrated – When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
c. Consummated – When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; the felony is produced

The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 is true only to crimes under the Revised
Penal Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of
these stages.

d. Stages of Execution
Three (3) Stages of Acts of Execution are:
1. Attempted - When the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
but does not produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance
2. Frustrated - When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the
felony but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
3. Consummated - When all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; the felony is produced

Two (2) Phases of Felony

1. Subjective Phase - It is that portion of the act constituting the crime, starting from the point
where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control
over his acts, including their natural course. [REYES, Book 1]
2. Objective Phase- It is that portion of acts after the subjective phase, the result of the acts of
execution [People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 160188 (2007)]
Development of a Crime
1. Internal Acts - intent, ideas and plans; not punishable, even if, had they been carried out, they
would constitute a crime [REYES, Book 1]
2. External Acts
a. Preparatory Acts – acts tending toward the crime but with no direct connection with the
crime. [REYES, Book 1]
General Rule: Not punished since these acts do not yet constitute even the first stage of the
acts of execution
Exception: When considered by law as independent crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of
picklocks)
b. Acts of Execution - Usually overt acts with a logical relation to a particular concrete offense
and is already punishable under the RPC. [REYES, Book 1]

FACTORS IN DETERMINING STAGE OF EXECUTION OF FELONY

1. Manner of Committing the Crime
a. Formal Crimes - consummated in one instant, no attempt [ALBERT, cited in REYES, Book 1
at 120.]
Example: The mere act of selling or even acting as a broker to sell marijuana or other
prohibited drugs consummates the crime. [People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325 (1990)]
b. Crimes Consummated by Mere Attempt or Proposal by Overt Act
Examples: Flight to enemy’s country [Art. 121] and Corruption of Minors [Art. 340]
c. Felony by Omission
There can be no attempted stage when the felony is by omission, because the offender does not
execute acts, rather he omits to perform an act which the law requires him to do. [REYES,
Book 1]
d. Crimes Consummated by Mere Agreement
Examples: In betting in sports contests and corruption of public officer [Art. 197 and Art.
212], the manner of committing the crime requires the meeting of the minds between the giver
and the receiver. [US v. Basa, 8 Phil. 89 (1907)]
e. Material Crimes
Those committed with three (3) stages of execution.

2. Elements of the Crime

The existence of certain elements is a factor in determining its consummation. [REYES, Book 1]
3. Nature of the Crime Itself
There are certain crimes requiring a specific criminal intent.
Examples: Robbery, Theft, Rape (See:

Discussion on Specific Criminal Intent)

THREE (3) STAGES OF EXECUTION:
A. ATTEMPTED
Elements [CNDO]:
1. The offender Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.
2. He does Not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
3. The non-performance of all acts of execution was Due to cause or accident Other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
When is a Crime Commenced:
1. There are external acts.
2. Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.
Definition of Terms:
1. Overt Act - Some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime. It is more than a mere planning or preparation. [REYES, Book 1]
2. Desistance:
General Rule: An absolutory cause which negates criminal liability provided that the desistance
was made when the acts done have not yet resulted in any felony. Desistance is recognized
only in the attempted stage of the felony.
Exemption: In certain cases, although negated at the attempted stage, but there may be other
felonies arising from his act.
Example: An attempt to kill that results in physical injuries still leads to liability for the injuries
inflicted.

B. FRUSTRATED
Elements [AFN]:
1. Offender performs All the acts of execution
2. All the acts performed would produce the Felony as a consequence
3. But the felony is Not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Not all crimes have a Frustrated Stage

General Rule: Felonies that do not require any result do not have a frustrated stage.

Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage [RABT]:

1. Rape - Once there is penetration, no matter how slight it is, the offense is consummated.
[People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724 (1990)]
2. Arson – The crime of arson already consummated even if only a portion of the wall or any part
of the house is burned. The consummation of the crime does not depend upon the extent of the
damage caused. [People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L- 31770 (1929)]
3. Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers – If there is a meeting of the minds, there is
consummated bribery or consummated corruption. [US v. Basa, 8 Phil. 89 (1907)]
4. Theft - Once there is unlawful taking, theft is consummated. It does not matter how long the
property was in the possession of the accused; it does not matter whether the property was
disposed or not [Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188 (2007)].

C. CONSUMMATED
Requisite: All the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Indeterminate Offense
It is one where the intent of the offender in performing an act is not certain. The accused may be
convicted of a felony defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistance.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature of the acts executed by him and the
attendant circumstances, and not from his admission.
iv. According to Gravity of Penalties

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are
those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their
periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of
arrest
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.

Grave felonies
Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive. Reclusion perpetua
a. Reclusion temporal
b. Perpetual or Absolute DQ
c. Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
d. Prision mayor
e. Fine more than P6,000

Less grave felonies

Those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period is
correctional.
a. Prision correccional
b. Arresto mayor
c. Suspension
d. Destierro
e. Fines equal to or more than P200

Light felonies
Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty is arresto menor, or
a fine not exceeding P200, or both.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable – Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against
person or property.

Why punishable only when consummated They produce light, insignificant moral, and
material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty
for their consummation.

Who are punished

Principals and accomplices only.
Examples (MATHS)
a. Malicious mischief when the value of the damage does not exceed two hundred
pesos or cannot be estimated
b. Alteration of boundary marks
c. Theft when the value of the thing stolen is less than 5 pesos and theft is committed
under the circumstances enumerated under Art. 308 par. 3 d. Intriguing against
Honor
e. Slight physical injuries

Importance of Classification
a. to determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not;
b. to determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the penalty.
Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less grave felonies,
the definition makes a reference specifically to Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code
(Penalties which may be imposed).

PHP-200 fine. A fine of exactly PHP-200 is for light felony under art. 9; but is
correctional penalty under art. 26.
In determining prescription of crimes, apply Art. 9. In determining the prescription of
penalty, apply Art. 26.
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. 26 (with respect to prescription of
penalties). It is considered as a correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10 years.

v. As to Plurality of Crimes

Plurality
Actor commits various delictual acts.
Real or material plurality
Different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender.
Offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed.
Three groups:
a. Continuous Crimes
b. Complex Crimes in Art. 48
c. Special Complex Crimes
NOTE: To be discussed extensively in latter parts

A. Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem

Art. 4. Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

1. Wrongful Act Different from that Intended

Rationale – El que es causa de la causa es cause del mal causado.
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused.” The presumption is
that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act. [People v.
Toling, G.R. No. L-27097 (1975)]
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.

Requisites
a. An intentional felony has been committed. • Felony is one committed by means of
dolo (malice)
• No intentional felony when:
▪ Act or omission is not punishable by RPC
▪ Act is covered by a justifying circumstance in Article 11
b. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender.

Proximate Cause
Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the
result
would not have occurred. [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and
INTERGAMES, Inc.,
G.R. No. 164749 (2017)]
When not Considered as Proximate Cause:
1. There is an active force between the felony and resulting injury
2. Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of victim

Efficient Intervening Cause

An intervening cause, to be considered efficient, must be "one not produced by a
wrongful act or omission, but independent of it, and adequate to bring the injurious
result.” [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company and INTERGAMES, Inc, G.R. No.
164749 (2017)]
For example, a cause which interrupts the natural flow of events leading to one’s death
may relieve the offender from liability. [REYES, Book 1]

Three (3) Modes under Art. 4 (1)2. Kinds

a. Error in Personae
Mistake in identity. A felony is intended, but there is a mistake in the identity of the
victim; injuring one person mistaken for another.
Mistake in killing of man instead of another, with proof of acting maliciously and
willfully, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. (People v Gona, G.R No.
L-32066 (1930)]
b. Abberratio Ictus
Mistake in blow. When offender intending to do an injury to one person actually
inflicts it on another.
Treachery can apply in a case of aberration ictus, applying the Flora doctrine [People
v Samson, G.R. No. 205228 (2015)]
c. Praeter intentionem
Mitigating circumstance of did not intend to commit a grave so wrong
The fact that he did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him from
the consequences of his unlawful act—it is merely a mitigating circumstance.
(People v Cagoco)

Penalty to be imposed
There is still criminal liability.
a. Error in Personae – Penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period (Art. 49)
b. Abberratio Ictus – Penalty for graver offense in its maximum period (Art. 48 on
complex crimes)
c. Praeter intentionem – Mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit a grave
so wrong (Art. 13)
Examples of when not criminally liable a. If A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out
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.
b. If B, who was being fired at with a gun by C to kill him, fired a 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. [Reyes]

Wrongful act done different from that intended, but not praeter intentionem
People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218(2011): In order that a person may be criminally
liable for a felony different from that which he intended to commit, it is
indispensable (a) that a felony was committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime committed by the
perpetrator. Here, there is no doubt appellant in beating his son Noemar and
inflicting upon him physical injuries, committed a felony. As a direct consequence
of the beating suffered by the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for
the death of his son, Noemar, is thus clear. Appellant is guilty of parricide.
However, there was error when the trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Appellant adopted means to
ensure the success of the savage battering of his sons. He tied their wrists to a
coconut tree to prevent their escape while they were battered with a stick to inflict
as much pain as possible. Noemar suffered injuries in his face, head and legs that
immediately caused his death. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where
the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did
actually produce the death of the victim.

In certain cases, the Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the death of the victim. [People v.
Sales, G.R. No. 177218(2011)]

There is no felony in the following instances:

1. There is no law punishing the crime (i.e., attempting suicide is not a crime, per se).
However, if death or injury results to another because of such attempt, then a
liability arises. 2. There is a justifying circumstance (i.e., one acting in self-defense
is not committing a felony). [REYES, Book 1]

c. Impossible Crimes
Art. 4. Criminal Liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:
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.
Rationale: To suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies. Objectively, the
offender has not committed a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
Requisites [OPP- EI- III- NV]:
1. Act performed would be an Offense against Persons or Property.
2. Act was done with Evil Intent.
3. Its accomplishment is inherently Impossible, or that the means employed is either
Inadequate or Ineffectual.
4. Act performed does Not constitute a Violation of another provision of the RPC.
Definition of Terms:
1. Inadequate - Insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison).
2. Ineffectual - Means employed did not produce the result expected (e.g. pressed the
trigger of the gun not knowing that it is empty).
3. Inherent Impossibility – Can pertain to:
a. Legal impossibility – where the intended acts, even if completed, do not amount to a
crime [Intod v CA, G.R. No. 103119 (1992)]
Example: Killing a person who is already dead [Intod v CA, G.R. No. 103119 (1992)].
b. Physical or factual impossibility – Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor
or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Example: The alteration, or even destruction, of a losing sweepstakes ticket could
cause no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime were it not for the
attempt to cash the ticket so altered as a prize-winning number. [People v.
Balmores, G.R. No. L-1896 (1950)]

No Attempted or Frustrated Impossible Crime

Since the offender in an impossible crime has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same, there could be no attempted impossible crime.
There is no frustrated impossible crime either, because the acts performed by the
offender are considered as constituting a consummated offense.

Not a Defense Impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not a defense but
an act penalized in itself.

d. CONTINUING CRIMES
Definition
Single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal resolution or
intent not susceptible of division.

Requisites
1. Plurality of acts;
2. Unity of penal provision infringed upon; and 3. Unity of criminal intent and
purpose.
Two or more violations of the same penal provision are united in one and the same
intent leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim [Gamboa v.
CA, G.R. No. L-41054 (1975)]

One Larceny Doctrine

For prosecution of theft cases, the one larceny doctrine provides that the taking of
severalthings, whether belonging to the same ordifferent owners, at the same time
and place,constitutes one larceny only so long as there is a single criminal impulse.
[Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 109266 (1993)]
Examples:
1. Insurrection, Rebellion, Subversion, and other crimes and offenses committed in the
furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto [In the Matter of Petition
for Habeas Corpus of Roberto Umil, G.R. No. 81567 (1990)]
2. Eight robberies as component parts of a general plan. [People v. De la Cruz, G.R.
No. L-1745 (1950)]
How Applied
Whenever the Supreme Court concludes that the criminals should be punished only
once, because they acted in conspiracy or under the same criminal impulse:
● It is necessary to embody these crimes under one single information.
● It is necessary to consider them as complex crimes even if the essence of the crime
does not fit the definition of Art 48, because there is no other provision in the RPC.
Application to Special Laws
The concept is applicable to crimes under special laws. This is in line with Art. 10
which states that the RPC shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter
provides the contrary.

Real or material
plurality Continuing crime
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
As to number of crimes commited
Each act performed constitutes a separate crime because each act is generated by a
criminal impulse The different acts constitute only one crime because all of the
acts performed arise from one criminal resolution.

Examples on Real Plurality:

1. The act of firing one’s revolver twice in succession, killing one person and
wounding another. [U.S. v. Ferrer, 1 Phil. 56 (1901)]
2. Two persons are killed one after another by different acts. [People v. Olfindo, 47
Phil. 1 (1924)]

Transitory Crime v. Continuing Crime

Offense where some acts material and essential to the crimes and requisite to their
commission occur in one territory and some acts are done in another. [AAA v.
BBB, G.R. No. 212448 (2018)]
The theory is that a person charged with a transitory offense may be tried in any
jurisdiction where the offense is in part committed. [Tuzon v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-
27410 (1975)]
Examples:
1. Estafa – its necessary elements (deceit and damage) may take place in different
territorial jurisdictions [Gamboa v. CA, G.R. No. L-41054 (1975)]
2. Violation of BP No. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) [Uy v. CA, G.R. No. 119000
(1997)]

f. Complex Crimes and Composite Crimes

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes –

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
1. COMPOUND CRIME
Requisites [S-S21]:
1. That only a Single act is performed by the offender
2. That the single act produces:
a. 2 or more grave felonies, or
b. 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave felonies, or 2 or more less grave felonies

Examples:
1. A single bullet killing two persons [People v. Pama, C.A., 44 O.G. 3339 (1992)]
2. The act of raping a girl, causing her physical injuries which required medical
attention for about 20 days. This is a complex crime of rape with less serious
physical injuries. [U.S. v. Andaya, 34 Phil. 690 (1916)]
Light Felonies
Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony.
2. COMPLEX CRIME
Requisites [2-N-SS]:
1. That at least 2 offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be

Necessary to commit the other

• Does not need to be “indispensable means”
3. That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the Same Statute.

When No Complex Crime Proper

1. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible abduction with rape, are separate acts
of rape
2. When trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave offense
3. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by special law
5. There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other
common
6. In case of continuous crimes.
7. When the other crime is an indispensable element of the other offense.
General Rules in Complexing Crimes
1. Information – only one (1) shall be filed
2. Jurisdiction - When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the
exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
3. Penalty
o Where both penalties provide for imprisonment - penalty to be imposed is the
penalty for the most serious crime, applied in its maximum.
o Where one of the penalties is imprisonment and the other is fine - only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.
4. When the other offense is not proven - accused can be convicted of the other.

Art. 48 is Not Applicable in the following instances [ESTRADA, Book 1]:

a. When the crimes have common elements;
b. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule of absorption;
c. Where the two offenses resulting from a single act are specifically punished as a
single crime.
Example: Less serious physical injuries with serious slander of deed, since this is
punished under Art. 265 (2)
d. Acts penalized under Art. 365 (those resulting criminal negligence) [Ivler v.
Modesto-San Pedro, supra.]
e. In special complex crimes or composite crimes.

3. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

In substance, there is more than one crime; but from the eyes of the law, there is only
one. The law treats it as a single crime for which it prescribes a single penalty. It is
also called a composite crime.
Requisites [2-SI-SCI]:
1. 2 or more crimes are committed
2. But the law treats them as a Single, Indivisible, and unique offense
3. Product of Single Criminal Impulse
Examples:
1. Robbery with Homicide [Art. 294 (1)]
2. Robbery with Rape [Art. 294 (2)]
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries [Art. 267 (3)]
4. Rape with Homicide [Art. 335]