Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
"The royal order dated December 17, 1886, INTENTIONAL - the act or omission of the
directed the execution of the royal decree of offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3,
September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that the act is performed with deliberate intent (with
the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as malice). The offender, in performing the act or in
amended in accordance with the incurring the omission, has the intention to
recommendations of the code committee, be cause an injury to another.
published and applied in the Philippine Islands
CULPABLE - the act or omission of the offender
(This law) having been published in the Official
is not malicious. The injury caused by the
Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887,
offender to another person is "unintentional, it
became effective four months thereafter."
being simply the incident of another act
The Revised Penal Code, as enacted by the performed without malice."
Philippine Legislature, was approved on
MISTAKE OF FACT – Misapprehension of the fact
December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1,
on the part f the person who caused injury to
1932. Felonies and misdemeanors, committed
another. He is not liable because he did not act
prior to January 1, 1932, were punished in
with criminal intent.
accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the
time of their commission, as directed by Art. 366 US VS Ah Chong – 15 Phil. 488
of the Revised Penal Code.
Facts:
Pascual died from the effects of the wound the The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was
following day not due to negligence or bad faith
The roommates appear to have been in friendly "The act itself does not make man guilty unless
and amicable terms prior to the incident and had his intention were so"
an understanding that when either returned at The essence of the offense is the wrongful
night, he should knock that the door and intent, without which it cannot exist
acquaint his companion with his identity. The
defendant alleges that he kept the knife under "The guilt of the accused must depend on the
circumstances as they appear to him."
If one has reasonable cause to believe the No. If an offense is acted from the impulse of
existence of facts which will justify a killing, if uncontrollable fear of an injury, at least in same
without fault or carelessness he does believe gravity, in the belief that the deceased was a
them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide malefactor who attacked him with a dagger in
hand and for the reason he was guilty of no
The defendant was doing no more than exercise crime and is exempt from criminal liability.
his legitimate right of self-defense He cannot be
said to have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness or even carelessness in falling into Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was
his mistake as to the facts RTC's decision is not due to negligence or bad faith, and this
reversed. The defendant is acquitted. rebuts the presumption of malicious, intent
accompanying the act of killing. In a case, this
People vs Bayambao. court acquitted the accused (U.S. vs. Ah Chong,
15 Phil., 488), and we deem the doctrine laid
FACTS
down in that case applicable to this one.
Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the
of murder, was found guilty thereof by the Court
appellant acquitted, with costs de officio, and
of First Instance of Lanao and sentenced to
the other pronouncements in his favor. So,
twenty years cadena temporal, the accessories
ordered.
of law, costs and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P1,000. US v Penalosa
He does not deny having caused the deceased's Article 475 of the prevailing Penal Code
death. He alleges, however, that he did it by provides as follows:
mistake, believing the deceased malefactor who
attacked him in the dark Any minor who shall contract marriage without
the consent of his or her parents or of the
P: While my wife was cooking, she called out to persons who for such purpose stand in their
me saying, 'Pambaya, Pambaya, someone has stead shall be punished with prision
thrown a stone at the house.' So I took my correccional in its minimum and medium
revolver and went down. Having gone under the degrees.
house, I looked around, but did not see anybody;
however, I did not go far because I was alone. FACTS:
Then, while I was near the staircase, about to The accused were convicted in the lower court
ascend, I heard a noise and saw a black figure for the violation of this article, it is appearing
that rushed at me, with hands lifted up as if to from the evidence adduced that the accused,
strike me, and becoming frightened, I fired at it. Marcosa Peñalosa, was not 21 years of age on
ISSUE:
the 3rd day of May, 1901, when she married the
codefendant, and that she contracted the
marriage without the consent of her father.
WON the offense made by the defendant which
was under uncontrollable fear of an equal or ISSUE:
greater injury is a crime. WON the defendant is guilty of violation of
Article 475
HELD: HELD:
The defendant has stated that she believed that evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction in
she was born in 1879; that so her parents had accordance with this article. Her husband has
given her to understand ever since her tenderest the right to accept the sworn statement of the
age; that she had not asked them concerning her woman. The only person whom she could ask for
age because her father had given her to so information was her father, and he had told her
understand since her childhood. Her father was age repeatedly.
present in the court room as the complaining
For the reasons above set forth the sentence of
witness. If his daughter was deviating from the
the lower court is reversed with reference to
truth it would have been an easy matter for him
both defendants, acquitting them freely with
to have testified denying the truth of what she
costs of suit de oficio.
had stated. It is evident that he was interested in
the conviction of his daughter, and the fact that US V Apego
the complaining witness did not contradict her
obliges us to accept as true the statements of the FACTS:
witness. Being true, they disclose that she acted Upon the arrival of Maria Apego and her
under a mistake of fact; that there was no husband, Pio Bautista, at the stairs of their
intention on her part to commit the crime house, and as Genoveva Apego did not reply to
provided for and punished the article 475. the call made to her from the outside by her
sister Maria, the said spouses went to the upper
floor of the house; Bautista led the way and, in
As for the husband, it has been proved that two order to enter, opened the outside door, a
days before the marriage was celebrated, he sliding door, and as there was no light inside
received a letter from the woman in which she stumbled against Genoveva Apego, who was
said that she was 21 years of age. This letter the sleeping near the said door, and touched her left
defendant showed to the clergyman who arm; thereupon, Genoveva awoke and believing,
married them. The woman when the marriage as she testified, that somebody was trying to
ceremony was performed took an oath before abuse her, seized a pocketknife, asking at the
the clergyman, in the presence of her husband, same time who was beside her, and as she did
that she was 21 years of age. The defendant not receive a reply immediately, she got up and
testifies that he had no suspicion that the struck the person before her a blow with the said
woman was a minor. This statement has not knife;
been contradicted and we consider that it
suffices to demonstrate that the defendant In the meanwhile Maria Apego had separated
acted under a mistake of fact, and in conformity from her husband to light a match and then a
with the principle laid down in this opinion he kerosene lamp there was in the house and was
has not been guilty of a violation of article 475 in not aware of the assault made upon her husband
connection with article 13, No. 3, nor in any by her sister Genoveva in front of Bautista, who
other manner. had already been wounded and was in an
attitude indicating that he was about to fall to
the floor; thereupon Genoveva went down out
of the house, calling for help, and ran to the
The conviction of the defendants in accordance
house of an aunt of hers where she was arrested
with article 568, together with article 29 of
by the policeman, Manuel Peinado, to whom she
General Orders, No. 58, has not been prayed for,
then and there delivered the pocketknife with
and even if it had been, we do not consider the
which she had assaulted her brother-in-law.
sentence, credit shall be allowed for one-half of
the time of imprisonment suffered by the
ISSUE:
defendant while awaiting trial. So ordered.
WON the defendant is criminally liable.
People V Gana (ZER MIN SIM)
HELD:
FACTS:
Under this hypothesis, she understood that
ISSUE:
there was a positive unlawful aggression from
which she had to defend herself with the said HELD
pocketknife, and it is also undeniable that there
People V Oanis (Jefferson)
was no previous provocation on her part; but it
is unquestionable that, in making use of this FACTS:
deadly weapon, even in the defense of her
person and rights, by decidedly wounding him Serapio Tecson accused Oanis and Galanta with
who had touched her or caught her by the arm, crime of murder, chief of police Cabanatuan and
the defendant exceeded her right of defense, Corporal of the Philippine Constabulary found
since there was no real need of wounding with guilty by the lower court of homicide through
the said weapon him who had merely caught by reckless imprudence and were sentenced each
her arm, to an indeterminate penalty of from one year
and six months to two years and two months.
The party who she believed was making an Defendants appealed separately.
attempt against her honor, because he had
caught her by the arm, performed no other act In the afternoon of December 24, 1938. Captain
of aggression such as might indicate a decided Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial
purpose to commit an attempt against her honor Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received
than merely to catch her by the arm. from Major Guido a telegram of the following
tenor: "Information received escaped convict
Once awake and provided with an effective Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in
weapon for her defense, there was no just nor Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain
reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant
the center of the body, where the principal vital and asked that he be given four men. Defendant
organs are seated, of the man who had not corporal Alberto Galanta, and privates
performed any act which might be considered as Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D.
an actual attempt against her honor. Fernandez, upon order of their sergeant,
reported at the office of the Provincial Inspector
For the foregoing reasons it is our opinion that,
where they were shown a copy of the above-
the defendant, Genoveva Apego, should be, as
quoted telegram and a newspaper clipping
she is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of two
containing a picture of Balagtas. They were
years of prision correccional, to the accessories
instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if
of article 61, to pay an indemnity of five hundred
overpowered, to follow the instruction
pesos to the heirs of the deceased, and, in case
contained in the telegram. The same instruction
of insolvency, to subsidiary imprisonment which
was given to the chief of police Oanis who was
shall not exceed one-third of the principal
likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. When
penalty, and to the payment of the costs of both
the chief of police was asked whether he knew
instances. In computing the time of the
one Irene, a bailarina, he answered that he knew
one of loose morals of the same name. Upon
request of the Provincial Inspector, the chief of
According to Appellant Galanta, when he and
police tried to locate some of his men to guide
chief of police Oanis arrived at the house, the
the constabulary soldiers in ascertaining
latter asked Brigida where Irene's room was.
Balagtas' whereabouts, and failing to see anyone
Brigida indicated the place, and upon further
of them he volunteered to go with the party. The
inquiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo
Provincial Inspector divided the party into two
Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the
groups with defendants Oanis and Galanta, and
same room. Oanis went to the room thus
private Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street
indicated and upon opening the curtain covering
leading to the house where Irene was
the door, he said: "If you are Balagtas, stand up."
supposedly living. When this group arrived at
Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke
Irene's house, Oanis approached one Brigida
up and as the former was about to sit up in bed.
Mallare, who was then stripping banana stalks,
Oanis fired at him. Wounded, Tecson leaned
and asked her where Irene's room was. Brigida
towards the door, and Oanis receded and
indicated the place and upon further inquiry also
shouted: "That is Balagtas." Galanta then fired at
said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.
Tecson.
Brigida trembling, immediately returned to her
own room which was very near that occupied by
Irene and her paramour. Defendants Oanis and
Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an On the other hand, Oanis testified that after he
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the had opened the curtain covering the door and
door where they were, simultaneously or after having said, "if you are Balagtas stand up."
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 Galanta at once fired at Tecson, the supposed
caliber revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Balagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed,
Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and and continued firing until he had exhausted his
looking at the door where the shots came, she bullets: that it was only thereafter that he, Oanis,
saw the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by entered the door and upon seeing the supposed
the entire scene. Irene fainted; it turned out later Balagtas, who was then apparently watching and
that the person shot and killed was not the picking up something from the floor, he fired at
notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a him.
peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio ISSUE:
Tecson, Irene's paramour. The Provincial
Inspector, informed of the killing, repaired to the Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no
scene and when he asked as to who killed the liability due to innocent mistake of fact in
deceased. Galanta, referring to himself and to performance of their official duties.
Oanis, answered: "We two, sir." The corpse was HELD:
thereafter brought to the provincial hospital and
upon autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de Castro, multiple No, Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to
gunshot which caused his death. the case at bar. “ignorance facti excusat” applies
only when the mistake is committed without
These are the facts found by the trial court and fault. the fact that the supposedly suspect was
fully supported by the evidence, particularly by sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked
the testimony of Irene Requinea. Appellants whether it is the real Balagtas. The crime
gave a different version of the tragedy. committed by the appellants is not merely
criminal negligence, the killing being intentional to determine the morality of human
not accidental. acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the
imbecile or the insane, and the infant
People vs. Monasalapa
under nine years of age as, well as the
minor over nine but less than fifteen
years old and acting without
FACTS: discernment, have no criminal liability,
HELD: because they act without intelligence.
3. INTENT - Intent to commit the act with
malice, being purely a mental process, is
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – While acting in self- presumed and the presumption arises
defense but hit a third person is justified if the from the proof of the commission of an
elements of self-defense are present. unlawful act
All the three requisites of voluntariness
in intentional felony must be present,
because "a voluntary act is a free,
CHARACTERISTICS OF A FELONY
intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S.
1. There must be an act or omission. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495).
2. Act or omission must be punishable by
RPC “Nullucrimen nullapoena, sine lege”
CULPABLE FELONIES - The act or omission of the
there is no crime if there is no law
offender is not malicious. The injury caused by
punishing it.
the offender to another person is "unintentional,
3. Act is performed or omission is incurred
it being simply the incident of another act
by means of dolo (malice) or culpa
performed without malice."
(fault).
REQUISITES OF CULPABLE FELONIES
REQUISITES OF DOLO/ INTENTIONAL FELONIES
1. FREEDOM – Voluntariness on the part of
1. FREEDOM – Voluntariness on the part of
the person to commit the act or
the person to commit the act or
omission.
omission.
a. When a person acts without
a. When a person acts without
freedom, he is no longer a
freedom, he is no longer a
human but being a tool, his
human but being a tool, his
liability is as much as that of the
liability is as much as that of the
knife that wounds, or of the
knife that wounds, or of the
torch that sets fire, or of the key
torch that sets fire, or of the key
that opens a door, or of the
that opens a door, or of the
ladder that is placed against the
ladder that is placed against the
wall of a house in committing
wall of a house in committing
robbery. (Lacks freedom –
robbery. (Lacks freedom –
offender is free from liability)
offender is free from liability)
2. INTELLIGENCE – The capacity to know
2. INTELLIGENCE – The capacity to know
and understand the consequence of
and understand the consequence of
one’s act. Without this power, necessary
one’s act. Without this power, necessary
to determine the morality of human
acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
imbecile or the insane, and the infant an account of the employment of inadequate or
under nine years of age as, well as the ineffective means.
minor over nine but less than fifteen
Requisites of impossible crime:
years old and acting without
discernment, have no criminal liability, 1. That the act performed would be an
because they act without intelligence. offense against persons or property.
3. NEGLIGENCE – It indicates a deficiency 2. That the act was done with evil intent.
of perception, failure to pay proper 3. That its accomplishment is inherently
attention and to use diligence in impossible, or that the means employed
foreseeing the injury and damage to be is either inadequate or ineffectual.
caused. 4. That the act performed should not
4. IMPRUDENCE – It indicates a deficiency constitute a violation of another
of action, failure to take the necessary provision of the Revised Penal Code.
precaution to avoid injury to person or
damage to property People vs. Guillen
(85 Phil. 307)
CRIMINAL LIABILITY - Article 4. Criminal liability.
- Criminal liability shall be incurred: FACTS:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, stated that
although the wrongful act done be different he performed the act voluntarily; that his
from that which he intended. purpose was to kill the President, but that it did
not make any difference to him if there were
2. By any person performing an act which would
some people around the President when he
be an offense against persons or property, were
hurled that bomb, because the killing of those
it not for the inherent impossibility of its
who surrounded the President was tantamount
accomplishment or an account of the
to killing the President, in view of the fact that
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
those persons, being loyal to the President, were
means.
identified with the latter. In other words,
PRAETER INTENTIONEM - The injurious result is although it was not his main intention to kill the
greater than that intended. persons surrounding the President, he felt no
compunction in killing them also in order to
Example: People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524, where
attain his main purpose of killing the President.
the accused, without intent to kill, struck the
victim with his fist on the back part of the head HELD:
from behind, causing the victim to fall down with
The facts do not support the contention of
his head hitting the asphalt pavement and
counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only
resulting in the fracture of his head, it was held
of homicide through reckless imprudence in
that the accused was liable for the death of the
regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less
victim, although he had no intent to kill said
serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva,
victim.
Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES – Committed by any person In throwing the hand grenade at the President
performing an act which would be an offense with the intention of killing him, the appellant
against persons or property where it not for the acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all
the consequences of his wrongful act; for in that sentence the defendant appealed to this
accordance with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal court.
Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
In this court the appellant alleges that the
cuommitting a felony (delito) although the
evidence adduced during the trial of the cause
wrongful act done be different from that which
was not sufficient to show that he was guilty of
he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury
the crime charged in the complaint.
caused to another should be unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act The record shows that sometime in the month of
performed without malice. November, 1914, an order of arrest was issued
for the defendant and placed in the hands of the
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) In the words of
chief of police of the municipality of Gerona. On
Viada, "in order that an act may be qualified as
or about the 15th of November, the chief of
imprudence it is necessary that neither malice
police, accompanied by another policeman,
nor intention to cause injury should intervene;
went to the house where the defendant was
where such intention exists, the act should be
staying for the purpose of making the arrest.
qualified by the felony it has produced even
Upon arrival at the house, inquiry was made of
though it may not have been the intention of the
some of the occupants whether or not the
actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that
defendant was there. Upon being informed that
produced." (Viada's comment on the Penal
he was in the house, the policeman who
Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed., p. 7) And, as was held by
accompanied the chief of police entered the
this court, deliberate intent to do an unlawful act
house without permission and attempted to
is essentially inconsistent with the idea of
arrest the defendant without explaining to him
reckless imprudence. (People vs. Nanquil, 43
the cause or nature of his presence there. The
Phil. 232)
defendant, according to the declaration of the
chief of police, resisted the arrest, calling to his
neighbors for assistance, using the following
US v Bautista
language: "Come here; there are some bandits
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, here and they are abusing me." Many of his
vs. neighbors, hearing his cry, according to the
MANUEL BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant testimony of the chief of police, immediately
came to his assistance and surrounded his
FACTS:
house.
This defendant was charged with the crime of
The policeman, who accompanied the chief, in
assault upon agents of the authorities and
his declaration said that when he attempted to
insulting them. Upon said complaint the
arrest the defendant, the defendant said to him:
defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found
"Why do you enter my house, you shameless
guilty, and sentenced by the Honorable Vicente
brigands?" and called to one Basilio, saying:
Nepomuceno to be imprisoned for a period of
four years two months and one day of prision There are some bandits here!"
correccional, with the accessory penalties of
article 61 of the Penal Code, to pay a fine of The policeman further testified that he then
P300, and in case of insolvency to suffer informed the defendant that he came there for
the purpose of arresting him, and the defendant
subsidiary imprisonment, in accordance with cc
provisions of the law, and to pay the costs. From asked him if he had an order of arrest, which
question was answered by the policeman in the
affirmative. Said policeman further testified that
immediately after he had notified the defendant
that he was a policeman and had an order of
arrest, the defendant submitted to the arrest
without further resistance or objection.
ISSUE:
HELD: