CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER  Otherwise stated, an accused is still

liable for wrongful acts which are

Art. 3. Definition. - Acts and omissions
different from that which he
punishable by law are felonies.
intended.
Felonies are committed not only by means
One who fires his gun at B, but missed and
of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
hit C instead, is liable for the injury caused
(culpa).
to C, although no intention to injure C.
There is deceit when the act is performed (Aberratio Ictus)
with deliberate intent; and there is fault
One who gave a fist blow on the head of D,
when the wrongful act results from
causing the latter to fall and hit a hard
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight,
pavement, is liable for the death of D even
or lack of skill.
without the intent to kill D. (Praeter
Art. 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability Intentionem)
shall be incurred:
One who stabbed another in the dark,
1. By any person committing a felony believing that it was his intended victim, but
although the wrongful act done be turned out to be another person, is also
different from that which he intended criminally liable. (Error in Personae)

2. By any person performing an act which RATIONALE OF PAR. 1 - "el que es causa de
would be an offense against persons or la causa es causa del mal causado" (he who
property, were it not for the inherent is the cause of the cause is the cause of the
impossibility of its accomplishment or on evil caused). Otherwise known as the
account of the employment of inadequate PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE.
or ineffectual means
 Proximate Cause -that cause, which
 Article 4 pertains to WHO is in natural and continuous sequence,
criminally liable. The manner of unbroken by any efficient
incurring criminal liability (HOW) is intervening cause, produces the
found in Art.3, RPC. injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred
1ST PARAGRAPH:  That is why a person performing a
felonious act is criminally liable for
 One who commits an intentional
all the natural and logical
felony is responsible for all the
consequences resulting therefrom.
consequences which may naturally
and logically result therefrom, REQUIREMENTS: for one to be criminally
whether foreseen or intended or liable for the wrongful act even if not
not. intended
1. an intentional felony has been committed HOWEVER, the felony committed is not the
- if the act performed is not felonious, then proximate cause of the resulting injury
the offender is not criminally liable; no when:
felony is committed
1. there is an active force that
a. when it is not punishable by the RPC intervened between the felony
b. when the act is covered by any of committed and the resulting injury,
the justifying circumstances under and the active force is a DISTINCT
Art.11, RPC (attempting to commit AND FACT ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN
suicide) from the felonious act
2. the resulting injury is due to the
2. that the resulting felony is the direct,
INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE VICTIM -
natural and logical consequence of the
aggravating his own wounds in the
felonious act/felony committed by the
hopes to penalize further the
accused
accused
 Note that what is required in the
In the case of Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina -
first paragraph is the commission of
It was held by the SC that the proximate
a FELONY NOT MERELY AN ACT.
cause of the death of the 4 passengers is
Therefore, it is necessary that it is
the NEGLIGENCE OF THE DRIVER THAT
punishable by the RPC.
OVERTURNED THE BUS AND FELL INTO
INTENTIONAL FELONY, WITH
CANAL, not the fire that burned the bus
MALICE. If the wrongful act results
from the imprudence, negligence, Explanation: It was ruled by the SC that the
lack of foresight or lack of skill, his overturning of the bus would NATURALLY
liability should be determined under RESULT to leaking of the gas from the tank.
Art. 365 which defines and penalizes The coming of the rescue men, with torch,
criminal negligence. was also a NATURAL approach as to
respond to the call for help, that even the
Example: X, a robber, told the women
agents of the carrier themselves asked for.
passengers "to bring out their money and
It was because it was very dark and the
not to shout or else there will be shots".
most handy source of light was the torch.
One of the women jumped out of the
The coming of the men with torch WAS TO
jeepney out of panic. Her head struck the
BE EXPECTED AND WAS THE NATURAL
pavement and died thereafter. - Any person
CONSEQUENCE OF THE OVERTURNING OF
who creates in another's mind an
THE BUS. Neither the driver nor the
immediate sense of danger, which causes
conductor would appear to have cautioned
the latter to do something resulting in the
or taken steps to warn the rescuers not to
latter's injuries, is liable for the resulting
injuries.
bring the lighted torch too near the bus. f. delay in the medical treatment of
Thus, the negligence of the agents. the victim (not the duty of the
doctor to help the offender)
US v. Rodriguez - Although the victim was
previously suffering from internal malady, These circumstances do not break the
because of a blow given with the hand/foot, causal relationship between the felonious
his death was hastened. The offender act of the offender and the resulting felony.
HASTENED the death of the victim and thus,
WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE
he is criminally liable. Again, applying the
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL
proximate cause doctrine.
INJURIES INFLICTED
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT EFFICIENT
1. that the victim at the time the
INTERVENING CAUSES:
physical injuries were inflicted was
a. weak or diseased physical condition in normal health
of the victim (TB or heart disease) 2. that death may be expected from
b. the nervousness or temperament of the physical injuries inflicted
the victim against the doctor's 3. that death ensued within a
orders and as a consequence, died reasonable time
due to internal hemorrhage caused  EIC (Efficient Intervening Cause) - an
by the inflicted wound act or fact absolutely foreign from
c. causes inherent to the victim - victim the criminal act which disrupts the
drowning (because being chased by causal connection between the
the aggressor) or victim being a felony committed and the resulting
habitual tuba drinker (which further felony
aggravated the wound caused by  The accused would not be criminally
offender) liable for the resulting felony if the
d. refusal by the victim of medical victim acted with
attendance or surgical operation or negligence/carelessness unto his
the failure of the doctor to give anti- wound. - especially if the victim had
tetanus vaccine/medicine (AGAIN, malicious intent to increase the
NOT THE OBLIGATION OF A 3RD criminal liability of his assailant;
PARTY TO HELP THE OFFENDER BE
NOTE: Unskillful and improper treatment
RELIEVED FROM CL)
may be an active force, but it not a distinct
e. erroneous or unskillful
act or fact absolutely foreign from the
medical/surgical treatment like that
criminal act. Hence, it would not be an EIC;
in a barrio where modern surgical
not foreign since the treatment follows as a
service was unavailable
consequence of the wound inflicted
SUPERVENING EVENT victim could not have been afflicted with an
infection which later on caused multiple
 may be the subject of amendment
organ failure; paralytic ileum which takes
of original information or of a new
place as a consequence of the exposure of
charge without double jeopardy
internal organs during the operation
 if a supervening event changed the
(caused victim's death) which would not
crime into a more serious one
have happened were it not for the injury
Another examples of wrong done is caused by the offender; tetanus infection if
considered the natural, direct, and logical happened within the incubation period of
consequence of the felony committed 14 days (otherwise, there would be an
efficient intervening cause)
- victim who drowned after being
chased/threatened by the accused  When a person has not committed a
felony, he is not criminally liable for
- victim removed the drainage from the the result which is not intended. (act
wound inflicted by the accused that of snatching the bolo just to satisfy
resulted in the development of peritonitis curiosity is not a felonious act;
and produced extreme pain and caused the retaining the possession of a bolo
victim's death later on taken by another and the tip of
which pierced through the heart of a
- other causes cooperated in producing the
bystander is not a felonious act)
fatal result, as long as the wound inflicted is
People v. Bindoy ---> Had the
dangerous that is calculated to
accused attempted to wound Pacas
destroy/endanger life; true even if the
during the struggle of retaining the
immediate cause of the death was
bolo, but instead of doing so, he
erroneous or unskillful medical/surgical
wounded Omamdam, he would
treatment
have been liable for the death of
- victim was suffering from internal malady- Omamdam, because in attempting
when a victim is suffering TB and the to wound another, the accused
offender gave fist blows on the deceased's would be committing a felony, which
right hypochrondium thereby hastening the is attempted homicide, if there is
victim's death intent to kill.
 "Although the wrongful act done be
- victim refused to submit to surgical
different from that which he
operation - victim is not obliged to submit
intended" ---> Error in personae,
to a surgical operation
aberratio ictus, praeter intentionem
- resulting injury was aggravated by
ERROR IN PERSONAE - mistake in the
infection - without the stab wounds, the
identity of the victim
Example: X went out of the house with the to believe that said act should be made the
intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the subject of penal legislation.
darkness of the evening, defendant mistook
In the same way, the court shall submit to
Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him a
the Chief Executive, through the DOJ, such
mortal wound with a bolo. X is criminally
statement as may be deemed proper,
liable for the death of Mapudul.
without suspending the execution of the
ABERRATIO ICTUS - mistake in the blow sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the
Example: X wanted to kill B. X fired his gun
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
directed towards B, but because of poor
taking into consideration the degree of
aim, C was the one who received the shot. C
malice and the injury caused by the
died thereafter. As such, X would be liable
offense.
for the death of C.
1ST PARAGRAPH: (contemplates a trial of
Note: In AI, both the intended and
criminal case which should have the
the actual victims are present. In error in
following requirements)
personae, only the actual victim is the
present.  that the act committed by the
accused appears NOT PUNISHABLE
PRAETER INTENTIONEM - injurious result is
by any law
greater than that intended
 but the court DEEMS IT PROPER to
X slapped his wife Y. As a result thereof, Y repress such act
was outbalanced and she hit her head on a  In such case, the court must render
pavement. Y died then. Although X did not the proper decision by dismissing
intend to kill his wife, the act of slapping, the case and acquitting the accused;
which is a felonious act, is the proximate  The judge must make a report to the
cause of the death of Y. Chief Executive, through the
Secretary of Justice, stating the
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with reasons which induce him to believe
acts which should be repressed but which that the said act should be made the
are not covered by the law, and in cases of subject of penal legislation.
excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has
knowledge of any act which it may deem Basis of Par. 1 - "nullum crimen, nulla poena
proper to repress and which is not sine lege" (there is no crime when there is
punishable by law, it shall render the no law punishing the act)
proper decision and shall report to the
2ND PARAGRAPH: (in case of excessive
Chief Executive, through the Department of
penalties; post-trial)
Justice, the reasons which induce the court
Requirements:
  the court after trial finds the Penalties are not excessive when intended
accused guilty to enforce public policy. Examples:
 the penalty provided by law and imprisonment for carrying and use of
which the court imposes for the powerful weapons (illegal possession of
crime committed appears to be firearm?); fine of 5,000 pesos for selling
clearly excessive, because -- (a) the Klim milk for 2.20 pesos when the selling
accused acted with lesser degree of price is 1.80 pesos (prohibiting unusual
malice and/or (b) there is no injury profit)
or the injury caused is of lesser
 COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY
gravity
THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY THE
-- examples of lesser degree of
LAW. - A judge may express
malice; no injury or injury of lesser
opposition to the penalty imposed
gravity found in pp. 96-97 (RPC
by law, but he is expected to respect
Book)
and apply the law, regardless of
 the court should not suspend the
private opinions. The only function
execution of the sentence
of the judiciary is to interpret the
 the judge should submit a statement
laws and apply them if not in
to the Chief Executive, through the
disharmony with the Constitution.
Secretary of Justice, recommending
 Judge has the duty to apply the law
executive clemency
as interpreted by the SC. - He must
Note: Executive clemency is recommended first think that it is his duty to apply
for the wife who killed her cruel husband --- the law as interpreted by the
> Considering all the circumstances and Highest Court to avoid
provocations including the fact as already inconveniences, delays, and
stated that her conviction was based on her expenses to the litigants.
own confession, the appellant is deserving  Basis for the imposition of the
of executive clemency. penalty imposed by the law,
although excessive - DURA LEX, SED
Executive clemency recommended because
LEX (The law may be harsh, but it is
of the severity of the penalty for rape. --->
the law.)
RA No. 4111 raised the penalty for simple
 Courts do not have the authority to
rape to reclusion perpetua and made
change the imposable penalty by the
qualified rape a capital offense. It is
law. Otherwise, there would be a
believed that in this case, after the accused
judicial legislation which is
shall have served a term of imprisonment
unconstitutional.
consistent with retributive justice, executive
 "When a strict enforcement of the
clemency may be extended to him. (People
provisions of this Code" - 2nd
v. Manlapaz)
paragraph of Art. 5 is applicable
 when there is a strict imposition of NOT BE ACTUALLY
its provisions which results to clearly COMMITTED; otherwise, a
excessive penalty taking into person would be liable for
consideration the degree of malice that felony
and the injury caused by the offense
Felonies against persons: (PMHIADPR)
 Such provision has been observed to
be applied to a violation of special 1. Parricide
law. --- Violation of RA 8282 (Social 2. Murder
Security Act of 1997) for failure to 3. Homicide
remit premium contributions. 4. Infanticide
Despite the voluntary payment of 5. Abortion
delinquent contribution, she/he was 6. Duel
sentenced to imprisonment of 4 7. Physical injuries
years. Although the petitioner was 8. Rape
convicted under a special penal law,
the Court is not precluded from Crimes against property: (RBTUCSCAM)
giving the RPC suppletory
1. Robbery
application. Considering the
2. Brigandage - taking something for
circumstances, the Court transmits
ransom, extortion and other
the case to the Chief Executive,
unlawful purpose in public
through the Sec. of Justice, and
roads/higways
recommends the grant of executive
3. Theft
clemency to the petitioner.
4. Usurpation - anyone who shall
--- IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES --- perform any act pertaining to the
government or to any person in
 The commission of an impossible authority or public officer without
crime is indicative of criminal being lawfully entitled to do so
propensity or criminal tendency on 5. Culpable insolvency - fraudulent
the part of the actor. Such person is disposal or concealment and or
a POTENTIAL CRIMINAL. disposal of properties of a debtor to
 Penalty for IC is provided in Art. 59, defraud creditors
RPC. 6. Swindling and other deceits
 Elements: (PEIV) 7. Chattel mortgage - a loan to
a. that the act performed purchase movable personal property
would be an offense against and the property/chattel secures the
PERSONS OR PROPERTY - a lender of an ownership interest
felony committed against 8. Arson and other crimes involving
persons/property SHOULD destruction
 9. Malicious mischief * factual impossibility - crime was not
b. that the act was done with produced due to extraneous circumstance
EVIL INTENT - done with unknown to the offender
malice; offender intended to
Ex.: When one tries to kill another by
cause an injury to another
putting in his soup a substance which he
Example: A wanted to kill B. When A saw B, believes to be arsenic when in fact it is
he found out that B was already dead. To common salt
satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast
ii. means employed is either
three times with a knife. Is this an
inadequate or inefficient
impossible crime?
Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a
--- No. A already knew that B was dead, so
small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with
he was aware that he could no longer hurt
the food given to B, believing that the
B, a dead person.
quantity employed is sufficient. But since it
In crime against persons, it is necessary that is insufficient, B is not killed.
the victim could be injured or killed.
HOWEVER, if the poison substance is
c. that its accomplishment is adequate but still did not result to the
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE or death of B, it would be FRUSTRATED
that the means employed is MURDER.
inadequate or ineffectual
Employment of "ineffectual means"
Act performed cannot produce an offense
Ex.: putting a substance in soup which the
against persons or property because:
offender thought is arsenic but was actually
i. inherent impossibility sugar; firing an unloaded revolver
(ineffectual since an unloaded gun cannot
It means that the act by itself is one of
injure/kill a person)
impossible accomplishment.

2 kinds: (a) legal impossibility and (b)

factual/physical impossibility How about this? (in the last element of IC)

* legal impossibility - under and all A would be liable of grave threats instead
circumstances, the act would not ripen into because of pointing the gun at B in order to
a crime get the latter's watch. Not IC because it
constitutes a violation of under provision
Ex.: stealing an object you own; killing a
which is Grave Threats, under Art. 282.
dead person
WHY PENALIZE IMPOSSIBLE CRIME?
-- to suppress criminal propensity or enforcement of the provisions of this Code
tendency would result to a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of
-- objectively, no crime, but subjectively, a
malice and injury caused by the offense.
person is a criminal
 Paragraph 1:
d. that the act performed
should not constitute a - contemplates a trial
VIOLATION of another
- the ff. situations must exist:
provision of the RPC
1. an act is performed which is not
punishable by a law
2. the court deems it proper to repress
such act
3. the court shall render the proper
decision by acquitting the accused or
dismissing the case
4. shall report to the CE through the
Secretary of Justice the reasons as to
why such act shall be made the
subject of a penal legislation

ART. 5. Duty of the court in connection with BASIS: "nullum crimen nulla poena sine
acts which are deemed to be repressed but lege" - there is no crime when there's no
which are not covered by the law and in law punishing it
case of excessive penalties. - Whenever a
 Paragraph 2 (excessive penalties)
court has knowledge of any act which it
may deem proper to repress but which is - the ff. situations must be present:
not punishable by a law, it shall render the
proper decision and shall report to the Chief 1. after trial, the accused is found
Executive through the Department of guilty
Justice the reasons which induce it to 2. court shall impose the penalty
believe that the said act shall be made the prescribed by the law
subject of a penal legislation. 3. strict provisions of RPC will result in
the imposition of a clearly excessive
In the same way, the court shall submit to penalty considering the degree of
the Chief Executive, through the malice and severity of injury; this
Department of Justice, such statement as it happens when:
may deem proper and shall not suspend the a. there is lesser degree of malice
execution of sentence, when a strict
 b. no injury or lesser severity of - total absence of injury and apparent lack
injury of malice
4. the court shall submit a statement
 Penalties are not excessive when
to the Chief Executive through the SJ
enforcing a public policy:
for recommendation of executive
1. repressing lawlessness through
clemency
imprisonment of the carrying
and use of powerful weapons -
penalty of imprisonment may be
harsh/excessive
2. suppressing unlawful
profiteering through a fine of
EXAMPLES: (for excessive penalty) 5,000 pesos - to avoid unjust
enrichment through unusual
 Lesser degree of malice
profits
- when the husband, in an  The judiciary must interpret and
inebriated/intoxicated state, maltreated his apply the law enacted by the
wife which prevented him from hitting their legislature and enforced by the
son which caused the death of his wife executive.
 The judges, in rendering decisions,
- didn't have the intent to kill his wife so the
must adhere with the penalty
penalty of reclusion perpetua was excessive
prescribed by the law and the
 Lesser severity of injury antecedent ruling of the Supreme
Court in the cases previously
- kidnapping with serious illegal detention decided.
of a child who was found out days later to  Dura Lex, Sed Lex - the law may be
be in a good state and smiling harsh but it is the law
 A judge may dissent only in opinion,
- minimal injury only
but he is tasked to follow the law as
- reclusion perpetua which is excessive it is. To change such would result to
judicial legislation which is
 No injury
unconstitutional, for it encroaches
- falsification by the chief of police of the upon the exclusive power of the
municipal police blotter and the book of legislature.
record of the warrant of arrests to show  The legislature's perceived failure in
that there was no delay in the preliminary amending the penalties provided for
investigation of the case in the said crimes cannot be
remedied through a court's
decisions (judicial legislation).
This is why Art. 5, RPC is there as a remedy. felonies, as well as those which are
Notwithstanding the excessive nature of the frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
penalty prescribed by the law, the court
A felony is consummated when all the
may recommend the same to the CE
elements necessary for its execution and
through the SJ for executive clemency
accomplishment are present; and it is
(absolute pardon, commutation of
frustrated when the offender performs all
sentence, etc.).
the acts of execution which would produce
 "Provisions of this Code" -- Art. 5 is the felony as a consequence but which,
also applied to violations of special nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
penal laws causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
Example: Violation of Social Security Act of
1997 or RA 8282 wherein the accused failed There is an attempt when the offender
to pay premium contributions; he already commences the commission of a felony
paid his delinquent contribution exclusive directly by overt acts, and does not perform
of penalties and the penalty was prision all the acts of execution which should
correccional as minimum to 20 years of produce the felony by reason of some cause
reculsion temporal as maximum or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
The court found it to be excessive and so,
the court may have suppletory application  Consummated felony - a felony is
of Art. 5, RPC although it's a violation of a consummated when all the
special penal law. The court may elements necessary for its execution
recommend to the CE through the SJ and accomplishment are present
executive clemency.  Frustrated felony - offender
performs all 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
 Attempted felony - there is an
attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated and felony by reason of some cause or
attempted felonies. - Consummated
 accident other than his own XCPNS: preparatory acts considered as
spontaneous desistance crimes by the RPC

DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME Examples: Possession of picklocks (Art. 304)

-- a preparatory act to the commission of
- stages from the conceiving of idea of
robbery
committing a crime to the realization of the
same b. Acts of execution - consummated,
frustrated and attempted
1. INTERNAL ACTS - mere ideas in the
(punishable by RPC)
mind of a person; NOT punishable
STAGES IN ORDER:
* intention and effect must concur
1st stage - attempted
* mere intention without effect -- no crime
2nd stage - frustrated
* effect without intention -- crime
3rd stage - consummated
Ex.: A intended to commit treason and
joined a body of armed men in the belief * In the first and second stages, there is NO
that they were Makapilis when in fact, they PRODUCED FELONY. But, offender is liable
are Guerrilleros. A was not liable for for attempted or frustrated felony.
treason, despite his intent.

2. EXTERNAL ACTS - include:

a. Preparatory Acts - as a GR, they're
not punishable

Hence, conspiracy and proposal to commit

a felony, which are only preparatory acts,
are not punishable, except when the law
provides for their punishment in certain
ATTEMPTED FELONY
felonies. (Art. 8)
Elements: (C-D-S-C)
Examples: mere carrying of a gasoline to the
place where a house is to be burned; buying 1. offender COMMENCES the
poision to kill someone commission of a felony directly by
overt acts - only offenders who
---> preparatory acts that are not
personally execute the commission
punishable since they do not even
of a crime can be guilty of
constitute the first stage of the execution of
attempted felony; offender must
those crimes
 take direct part in the execution of THE DESISTANCE MUST BE MADE BEFORE
the act ALL THE ACTS OF EXECUTION ARE
PERFORMED. - stealing the chicken and
Ex.: A induced B to kill C, but B refused. B
returning it after can't be construed as
will not be criminally liable for attempted
desistance because the act of theft was
homicide because there was no external
consummated, the act of stealing the
act/physical activity. It is a proposal
chicken was done; A performed all acts of
(preparatory act) to kill someone, which is
theft before he returned the chicken.
not punishable by the law.
A inflicted a mortal wound on B which
But if B pushed as told by shooting at C but
would produce death. A was about to
missed and didn't injure C, then both A and
assault B again, but desisted. B was healed
B will be liable of an attempted felony.
due to timely medical intervention. -- no
Under conspiracy, the act of one is the act
desistance that would excuse A from
of all.
criminal liability because the wound
2. DOES NOT perform all acts of inflicted was mortal which would cause
execution which should produce the death; frustrated homicide
felony - if all acts of execution are
NOTE: The desistance which exempts from
performed, nothing more is left to
criminal liability has reference to the crime
be done --> it's either frustrated
intended to be committed, and has no
(felony not
reference to the crime actually committed
produced)/consummated (felony
by the offender before his desistance.
produced)
3. offender's act is not stopped by his Example: A, with intent to kill B, fired his
own SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE pistol at B but did not hit the latter. B cried
for mercy and asked A not to kill him. A
If there is spontaneous desistance which
aimed his gun but desisted from firing his
prevented him to perform all acts of
pistol again. Is A criminally liable?
execution --> no attempted felony; no
criminal liability -- Yes. A would be criminally liable for grave
threat and not for attempted homicide
Rationale: sort of reward granted by law to
because the desistance has reference to the
those who heed the call of conscience
crime intended and not to the crime
One who takes part in planning a criminal actually committed. A desisted before he
act but desists in its actual commission is could perform all acts of execution in the
exempt from criminal liability. crime of homicide (no injury or slight
physical injury or light wounds).
The desistance may be through fear or
remorse.
-- Not exempted from the crime committed voluntary desistance of the perpetrator,
before desistance would logically and necessarily ripen into a
crime/offense.
4. the non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to CAUSE or Ex. killing a person by means of poison is
accident other than his own murder (Art. 248, RPC)
spontaneous desistance
Overt Act v. Preparatory Act
Cause - timely medical
OA - direct connection with the crime
intervention/discovery
intended (putting the poison in the soup of
A wasn't able to steal the wallet inside B's B and then B put into his mouth a spoonful
pocket because of the latter's timely thereof)
discovery.
PA - no direct connection (mere buying of
Accident - bullet jammed poison)

A aimed his pistol at B to kill the latter, but EXAMPLES:

when he pressed the trigger it jammed and
* Drawing or trying to draw a pistol is not
no bullet was fired from the pistol.
an OA (People v. Tabago et al.) --> to
When is a commission of a felony deemed constitute an attempted homicide, the gun
commenced directly by overt act? --> The ff. must be fired, with intent to kill, at the
requisites must concur: (E-D) offended party, without inflicting a mortal
wound
a. that there be external acts
b. such external acts have direct * Raising a bolo as if to strike not an OA of
connection with the crime intended homicide (US v. Simeon) --> crime
to be committed committed was only threatening with a
weapon; raising a bolo without a blow and
Thus, the external act must be related to
without intent does not constitute
the overt act of the crime the offender
attempted homicide
intended to commit. THEY SHOULD NOT BE
PREPARATORY ACT because these do not If it was struck and there was intent to kill,
have direct connection with the crime it would be an overt act of homicide.
intended to be committed.
OVERT ACT MAY NOT BE A PHYSICAL
* Overt act - a physical activity or deed ACTIVITY (US v. Gloria) --> a proposal to
indicating the intention to commit a offer money to a public officer for
particular crime which if carried to its corrupting him, is by its nature, not a
complete termination, without being physical activity, BUT IT DOES CONSTITUTE
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the AN OVERT ACT CONNECTED WITH THE
CRIME OF CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC  How to ascertain the intention of
OFFICER. the accused? --> Nature of the acts >
admission of the accused (factors in
[PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG]
determining intent to kill)
 making an opening with an iron bar
Example:
on the wall of a store - does not
tantamount to an overt act Hitting Y on the head with huge stone and
connected with robbery the blow was forceful. Considering the
 2nd requisite is missing - no direct great size of the weapon, impact it
connection with the crime of produced and the location of the wound
robbery by the use of force upon inflicted --- can be deduced from the facts
things that there was intent to kill
 for it to be a robbery by use of force
upon things, it must be shown that
the offender clearly intended to take Question: Should an accused who
possession of some personal admittedly shot the victim but is shown to
property belonging to another have inflicted only a slight wound be held
 The opening made by the offender is accountable for the death of the victim due
only an attempted trespass to to a fatal wound caused by his co-accused?
dwelling because the intention of
the accused was shown by such act --> liable for attempted homicide and not
-- to enter the store against the will for slight physical injuries because a gun
of the owner. Only attempted shot leads to no other conclusion but to kill
because all acts of execution were someone (intent to kill)
not performed because Lamahang
--> so, if there's no intent to kill, slight PI
didn't enter through the opening.
only but if there is, it's attempted
homicide/murder (as the case may be)

ATTEMPTED FELONY: SUBJECTIVE PHASE

 Indeterminate Offense - purpose of  in attempted felony, offender never

the offender in performing the act is passes the subjective phase
ambiguous (People v. Lamahang) --  Subjective phase - portion of the
the objective of Lamahang in acts constituting the crime starting
succeeding to enter the store may from the point where the offender
be to rob, cause physical injury, or to begins the commission of the crime
commit any other offense to that point where he still has
 control over his acts, including their 2. all acts of execution would
acts' natural course PRODUCE the felony as a
 If between these points the offender consequence
is stopped by cause/accident other
Example: inflicting a mortal wound which
than his own desistance, the
would naturally produce death of the victim
subjective phase has not been
passed and it is an attempt. But if 3. but the felony is NOT produced
there's desistance, no crime.
 If he is not so stopped and continues If felony is produced, it would be
until he performs the last act, it is consummated.
frustrated (provided that the crime
4. by reason of causes INDEPENDENT
is not produced).
of the will of the perpetrator
 In frustrated and consummated
stages, the acts of the offender Causes may be the intervention of 3rd
reached the objective phase. persons who prevented the consummation
of the offense or may be due to the
Example: In killing by poison, the offender
perpetrator's own will.
still has control over his acts if the offender
voluntarily desisted and told B to throw the if the felony is prevented because of the
soup. But, if B drank the soup with poison, perpetrator's own will, there's no frustrated
offender no longer has control over his act. felony because the 4th element does not
exist.
If there's timely medical intervention that
prevented the death of B - frustrated Ex.: A doctor mixed arsenic in the food of
murder (objective phase) his wife to kill the latter. The wife drank the
soup, but the doctor suddenly had a change
of heart. He then injected the anecdote to
FRUSTRATED FELONY his wife.

Elements: (A-P-N-I) -- Not frustrated (4th element missing)

1. offender perfroms ALL acts of -- Not attempted (all acts of execution were
execution performed)
 Nothing more is left to be done by
-- PHYSICAL INJURIES
the offender because the last act
necessary to produce the crime was The intent to kill disappeared when he
performed. prevented the consummation of the crime
 This element is what distinguishes due to his own will.
frustrated from attempted felony.
THE SC EMPHASIZED THE BELIEF OF THE then attempted; if the wound would
ACCUSED IN CERTAIN CASES. heal for 7-8 days

[People v. Sy Pio] ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED FELONY v.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
 Accused KNEW that he had not
actually performed all acts of Commonality: the evil intent is not
execution which should produce the accomplished
felony he intends. -- attempted
Differences:
murder
a. in IC, the accomplishment of the
[People v. Dagman]
crime is not possible; in
 Accused THOUGHT they had killed frustrated/attempted, possible of
the victim and deadly weapons were execution/accomplishment
used, blows were directed at the b. in IC, what prevented the
vital parts; death did not result by accomplishment is the inherent
cause independent of the impossibility/ineffectual or
perpetrator's will by playing possum inadequate means; in
by the victim -- subjective phase was attempted/frustrated felonies, what
passed; frustrated prevented is the causes/accident in
w/c the offender had no part therein
[US v. Eduave]

 Offender thought he had killed the

victim CONSUMMATED FELONY

But at the end of the day, what is - all elements necessary for its
considered is all the acts of execution execution/accomplishment are present
performed by the offender which would
- every crime has its own elements which
produce the felony as a consequence.
must all be present to constitute a culpable
NATURE OF THE WOUND violation of a precept of law

 Inflicting of the mortal wound that When a felony has 2 or more elements and
would necessary produce death --> one of them is not proved by the
frustrated prosecution during trial, either:
 slight physical injuries (through
a. felony is not consummated
medical certificates/ expert
testimonies by expert medical Ex.: Death is an element of homicide and if
practitioners)---> if there's intent, such is missing, it could either be attempted
or frustrated.
 b. felony not committed arson does not depend upon the extent of
the damage caused (People v. Hernandez)
Ex.: Intent to gain is lacking on the person
who took the personal property of another - setting fire to rags and jute sacks soaked in
to the latter's prejudice, theft is not kerosene oil and placing the same near the
committed. house but which didn't cause a part of the
house to burn is FRUSTRATED arson (US v.
In estafa (Art. 315), if the element of deceit
Valdes); there's blaze but didn't burn any
or abuse of confidence is not proven, there
portion of the house
is no crime. There is only civil liability. BUT,
if there is deceit but no damage, the - Attempted: when lighting the match
accused may be found guilty of attempted intended to burn something with gasoline
or frustrated estafa. (damage being the final was apprehended bec the acts were directly
objective was not produced) connected w/ arson (pouring gasoline and
striking a match --> could not be for any
c. another felony committed
other purpose)
Ex.: In robbery with violence against
b. Elements constituting the crime
persons, if the element of intent to gain is
not proven, the accused is guilty only of Theft:
grave coercion. (another felony)
- consummated: thief is able to get hold of
In forcible abduction, when the element of the thing belonging to another even if he
lewd design is not proven, the accused may was not able to carry it away
be held liable for another crime which is
- suffice it to say that the property was
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
taken away with intent to gain

- not necessary that the property be taken

HOW DO WE DETERMINE IF THE CRIME IS away
ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED OR
Estafa:
CONSUMMATED? We consider the ff.: (N-E-
M) - consummated: victim is damaged or
prejudiced
a. Nature of the offense
- if there is no damage, it is either frustrated
Arson:
or attempted estafa
- it is not necessary that the property is
- elements: (a) abuse of confidence and (b)
totally destroyed by fire
damage
- consummated: even if only a small portion
c. Manner of committing the crime
of the house/building is burned; crime of