Art 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies.

Acts​ – an overt or external act

Omission​ – failure to perform a duty required by law. Example of an omission: failure to render assistance to anyone who is in danger of dying or is in an uninhabited place or is
wounded – abandonment.
Felonies​ – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Crime​ – acts and omissions punishable by any law

What requisites must concur before a felony may be committed?

There must be (​1​) an act or omission; (​2​) punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and (​3​) the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

How felonies are committed:

by means of deceit (dolo) – There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent.

Requisites​: freedom, intelligence, intent

Examples​: murder, treason, and robbery

Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases:

(1) When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill;

(2) When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum.

In criminal law, intent is categorized into two:

(1) General criminal intent; and

(2) Specific criminal intent.

General criminal intent ​is ​presumed​ from the mere doing of a wrong act. This does not require proof. The burden is upon the wrong doer to prove that he acted without such
criminal intent.

Specific criminal intent ​is ​not presumed​ because it is an ingredient or element of a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes of attempted or frustrated homicide/parricide/murder.
The prosecution has the burden of proving the same.

Distinction between intent and discernment

Intent​ is the determination to do a certain thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is the design to resolve or determination by which a person acts.

On the other hand, ​discernment​ is the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. It relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to his act and relates to the intelligence
as an element of dolo, distinct from intent.

Distinction between intent and motive

Intent​ is demonstrated by the use of a particular means to bring about a desired result – it is not a state of mind or a reason for committing a crime.

On the other hand, ​motive​ implies motion. It is the moving power which impels one to do an act. When there is motive in the commission of a crime, it always comes before the
intent. But a ​crime may be committed without motive.

If the crime is intentional, it cannot be committed without intent. Intent is manifested by the instrument used by the offender. The specific criminal intent becomes material if the
crime is to be distinguished from the attempted or frustrated stage.

by means of fault (culpa)​ – There is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Imprudence​ – deficiency of action; e.g. A was driving a truck along a road. He hit B because it was raining – ​reckless imprudence.

Negligence​ – deficiency of perception; failure to foresee impending danger, usually involves lack of foresight

c. ​Requisites​:
Freedom
Intelligence
Imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or foresight
Lack of intent

The concept of criminal negligence is the inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform an act. If the danger impending from that
situation is clearly manifest, you have a case of reckless imprudence. But if the danger that would result from such imprudence is not clear, not manifest nor immediate you have
only a case of simple negligence.

Mistake of fact​ – is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.

a. ​Requisites​:

● that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
● intention of the accused is lawful;
● mistake must be without fault of carelessness.
Example: United States v. Ah Chong.

Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying
to open the door. He asked the identity of the person, but he did not receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the
intruder should he attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing that he was attacked, he seized a knife and fatally wounded the intruder.

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony is a product of
culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact.

Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
Causes which produce a different result:

Mistake in identity of the victim ​– injuring one person who is mistaken for another (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C
because he (A) mistook C for B.
In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended
victim.

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae
does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.

In ​mistake of identity​, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, ​Article 49 ​will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a
mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance

Mistake in blow ​– hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous instances (this is a ​complex crime under Art. 48)​ e.g., B and C were walking together.
A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.
In ​aberratio ictus, ​a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as
well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

Injurious result is greater than that intended ​– causing injury graver than intended or expected (this is a ​mitigating circumstance​ due to lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure B. However, B died.
​praeter intentionem ​is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a
notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony

In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated by criminal intent.

Requisites​:
 ● the felony was intentionally committed
● the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done
Doctrine of Proximate Cause​ – such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would
necessarily produce the event.

Requisites​:

● the direct, natural, and logical cause

● produces the injury or damage
● unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate Cause is negated by:

● Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
● Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim. proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended
party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that made him risk himself.

Requisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death​ – Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the
presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. ​Provided​:
● victim was in normal health
● death ensued within a reasonable time
The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.

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.

Requisites: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)

● Act would have been an offense against persons or property
● Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
● There was criminal intent
 ● Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were employed.
Notes​:
Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.

The law intends to punish the criminal intent.

There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

Felonies against persons:​ parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.

Felonies against property​: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.

Inherent impossibility​: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A shot B. A is liable. If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a
different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.

Employment of inadequate means​: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived because A used small quantities of poison – frustrated murder.

Ineffectual means: ​A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empty. A is liable.
Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked
is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an
impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.

If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the
offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the
act done by him.

this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of the same lesson by
charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is
constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal
Code.
Art 5. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision and
shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made subject of
legislation.

In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of
the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice
and the injury caused by the offense.

When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act
should be punished.

Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these
crimes.