FELONIES

Article 3 Definition Acts and omissions punishable

by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate
intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results
Felonies acts and omissions punishable by the
Revised Penal Code.
Elements of Felonies:
(a) That there must be an act or omission
(b) That the act or omission must be punishable by
the Revised Penal Code.
(c) That the act performed of the omission incurred
by the means of dolo or culpa.
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ARTICLE 3
a. Act any bodily movement tending to produce
to produce some effect in the external world
- the possibility of its production is sufficient (not
necessary that the same be actually produced)
- must be defined by the RPC as constituting a
felony
- at least, an overt act of that felony (external act
with a direct connection with the felony intended
to be committed)

The act must be external. No matter how
immoral/improper a thought or intention may be it will
never constitute a felony.

b. Omission (inaction) failure to perform a
positive duty
- there must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act
Felonies by omission there is a law (requiring
performance of an act) and person required to do the act
fails to perform it.
Example: An officer entrusted with collection of taxes
who voluntary fails to issue a receipt as provided by law,
is guilty of illegal exaction [Art 213, par 2(b)].
Because there is no law that punishes a person who
does not report to the authorities the commission of a
crime which he witnessed, the omission to do so is not
a felony.
Example: People vs Silvestre and Atienza (56 Phil 353)
c. Punishable by law based on the maxim
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - there is
no crime when there is no law punishing it
- means punished by the RPC, not a special law
- felony are acts and omissions punished in the
RPC, while,
- crime and offense are applied to infractions of
the law punished by special statutes
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES according to means
by which they were committed (Article 3, para 2):
(a) intentional felonies act or omission is
malicious; performed with deliberate intent; with
an intention to cause injuries
(b) culpable felonies act or offender is not
malicious; injury caused is unintentional (simply
the incident of another act performed without
malice)
Felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice
Deceit is not the proper translation of dolo. Dolus is
equivalent to malice which is the intent to do an injury to
another.
Most of the felonies in Book II are committed by means
of dolo or deceit. Only a few are by means of culpa
(example: malversation through negligence, acts by
imprudence or negligence).
Crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence
or negligence murder, treason, robbery, malicious
mischief
Felonies committed by means of culpa
An act performed without malice, but at the same time
punishable, though in a lesser degree and with an equal
result, qualifies as imprudence or negligence.
A person who caused an injury, without intention to
cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable felony.

Example: In trying to render medical assistance to cure
ulcer in good faith, defendant wrapped her feet with rags
and set it on fire causing physical injuries. He was held
liable for physical injuries through imprudence (U.S. vs.
Divino, 12 Phil. 175, 190)

Reason for punishing acts of negligence (culpa)

A man must use common sense, and exercise due
reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear
of incurring punishment. Otherwise, his own person,
rights and property, and those of his fellow beings, would
ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.

In felonies committed by means of dolo or with malice
and in felonies committed by means of fault or culpa, the
acts or omissions are voluntary.

A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary. Fact prevails
over assumption, and in the absence of indubitable
explanation, the act must be declared voluntary and
punishable (People vs. Macalisang,
22 SCRA 699).

Acts executed negligently are voluntary.

Lopez, a truck driver, struck down a girl during a
torrential rain. He claims he had no intention of doing so.
Although done without malice or criminal design. In this
case, Lopez was not compelled to refrain or prevented
from taking the precaution necessary to avoid injury to
persons (People vs Lopez).

When there is compulsion or prevention by force or
intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.

Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies
must be
voluntary

1. The Revised Penal Code continues to be based on
the
Classical Theory (basis of criminal
liability is human free will).
2. Acts or omissions punished by law are always
deemed
voluntary, since man is a rational being.
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed with
deliberate
intent which must necessarily be voluntary; and in
felonies
by culpa, the imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material injury results.

Requisites of dolo or malice
1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or
omitting to do an act;

2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act
or omitting to do the act;

3. He must have INTENT while doing the act or omitting
to do the act.

All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional
felony must be present, because "a voluntary act is a
free, intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S. vs. Ah Chong,
15 Phil. 488, 495).

Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the
use of intelligence.

One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent
to do an injury to another. One who acts without
intelligence has no such intent.

The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of
a person.

Where the defendant carried away articles belonging to
another and concealed them from the owner and from
the police authorities, denying having them in his
possession, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation,
it may be inferred that he acted with intent of gain.
Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown
by the overt acts of a person. (Soriano vs. People, 88
Phil. 368, 374)

Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of
an unlawful act.

Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always
presumed to exist on the part of the person who
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the
contrary shall appear. (U.S. vs. Apostol,
14 Phil. 92, 93)

But the presumption of criminal intent does not arise
from the proof of the commission of an act which is not
unlawful.

Where the facts proven are accompanied by other facts
which show that the act complained of was not unlawful,
the presumption of criminal intent does not arise.

Mistake of fact

While ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith (ignorantia legis non excusat),
ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from
criminal liability (ignorantia facti excusat).

An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of
criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a
felonious act. (People vs. Coching, et al., C.A., 52 O.G.
293, citing People vs. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257)

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the
facts
been as the accused believed them to be.

2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act
should be lawful.

3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on
the part of the accused.


















Lack of intent to commit a crime may be inferred
from facts of the case

A person answered in negative when asked if he has
ever been accused of a violation of a law, when in fact
he really had been accused before. Consequently, he
was prosecuted for the crime of perjury but later on the
court found out that he did not have any intent to commit
the crime because he relied on the opinion of the
provincial iscal that unjust vexation does not involve
moral turpitude, and he thought it was no longer
necessary to mention it.

In mistake of fact, the act done would have been
lawful, had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be

The act done would not constitute a felony had the facts
been as the accused believed them to be.

-U.S. vs. Ah Chong
-People vs. Oanis

The mistake must be without fault or carelessness
on the part of the accused

Ah Chong and Oanis distinguished
In Ah Chong, there is an innocent mistake of fact
without any fault or carelessness on the part of
the accused because having no time or
opportunity to make any further inquiry, and
being pressed by circumstances to act
immediately, the accused had no alternative but
to take the facts as they appeared to him.

In the Oanis case, the accused found no
circumstances whatever which would press
them to immediate action. The police officers
were tasked to arrest a notorious criminal and
escapted convict. But when they found the
accused asleep, they fired at him without first
making reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The
victim turned out to be an innocent man and not
the criminal. The police officers had enough time
to ascertain his identity but chose not to do so.

Lack of intent to kill the deceased, because his
intention was to kill another, does not relieve the
accused from criminal responsibility

Just because someone killed a person different from
who he intended to kill does not relieve him of criminal
liability because he still acted maliciously and willfully.

In mistake of fact, the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful

Error in personae or mistake in the identity of the victim

Example: A wanted to shoot B in a dark alley, but
instead shot C, A's brother. A had no intention to kill C.
Since the act and intention of A in firing his pistol are
unlawful, A cannot properly invoke mistake of fact in his
defense

No crime of resistance when there is a mistake of
fact

When a person resists arrest because he believes that
the officer is a bandit, but sumits to the arrest
immediately upon being informed by the officer that he is
a policeman, will not be guilty of the crime of resistance
because of the mistake of fact.

When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not
a defense

In mistake of fact, what is involved is lack of intent on the
part of the accused. In felonies commited through
negligence, there is no intent to consider, as it is
replaced by imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill.

Example: People vs. De Fernando - A policeman was
found guilty of homicide through reckless negligence
because he fired his gun at someone whom he thought
to be the accused, since three convicts had escaped. He
did not even inquire from the daughter of the owner of
the house who the unknown person might be.

Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed
by dolo

Because of the following legal maxims:

1. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: "the act itself
does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so"

2. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus: "act act
done by me against my will is not my act"

Distinction between general intent and specific
intent

In felonies committed by dolus, the third element of
voluntariness is a general intent; whereas, in some
particular felonies, proof of particular specific intent is
required.

When accused is charged with intentional felony,
absence of criminal intent is a defense

All reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and
not crime should be indulged in for the benefit of the
accused.

If there is only error on the part of the person doing the
act, he does not act with malice, and for that reason he
is not criminally liable for intentional felony.

Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and
imprudence in felonies committed by means of
culpa.

-The doing of or failing to do an act must also be
voluntary, freedom and intelligence on the part of the
offender

-The requisite of criminal intent is replaced by
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill

-The mind of the accused is not criminal. However, his
act is wrongful because of the injury or damage caused
to the injured party results from INLL of the accused.

REQUISITES (CULPA)
1. Freedom while doing the act
2. Intelligence while doing the act or
ommitting to do the act
3. Imprudent, negligent or lacks
foresight or skill while doing the act or
ommitting to do the act

In culpable felonies, the injury caused to another
should be unintentional, it being simply the accident
of another act performed without malice

Example: People vs. Guillen - In testifying on his own
behalf, Guillen admitted that he wanted to kill the
President, and he knew that byy throwing the bomb
where some people were arround, killing the latter was
tantamount to killing the president himself. Therefore, he
was criminally liable by committing a felony. In criminal
negligence, the injury caused to another should be
unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.

In order that an act may be qualified as imprudence, it is
necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause
injury should intervene; where such intention exists, the
act should be qualified by the felony it has produced
even though it may not have been the intention of the act
to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced.

Mistake in the identity of the intended victim is not
reckless negligence.

Where an unlawful act is WILLFULLY done, a mistake in
the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered
as reckless imprudence.

A person causing damage or injury to another,
without malice or fault, is not criminally liable under
the RPC.

In such case, he is exempt from criminal liability,
because he causes an injury by mere accident.

Example: Three men were going deer-hunting. The
victim had a lantern fastened to his forehead. When they
saw a deer, the accused aimed at it, but the accused
stumbled against an embankment. His gun was
accidentally discharged, leading to the death of the
victim. However, the accused is not criminally liable
because he had no criminal intent and he was not
negligent.

The act performed must be lawful

In the previous example, the act of aiming a gun at the
deer is lawful.

The third class of crimes are those punished by
special laws

THREE CLASSES OF CRIMES:
1. Intentional felonies (RPC)
2. Culpable felonies (RPC)
3. Crimes punised by municipal or city
ordinances (Special laws)

Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special
laws.

It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to
perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law.

Intent to commit the crime (criminal intent) and intent
to perpetrate the act (prohibited act is done freely
and consciously) must be distinguished. A person may
not have consciously inteded to commit a crime; but he
did intent to commit an act, and that act is, by the very
nature of things, the crime itself.

Example: People vs. Bayona - Person A was in an
automobile. He went out when his friend called him. A
did not leave his revolver in the automobile because
there were many people in the polling place and he
might lose it. When the DILG rep saw him, he took A's
revolver. Therefore, A was convicted of intimidating
voters because the law that he violated was a statutory
provision, and the intent was no longer material.

The rule is that in acts mala in se, there must be criminal
intent; but in those mala prohibita, it is suffient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done.

No intent to perpetrate the act prohibited.



In those crimes punished by special laws, the act
alone, irrespective of its motives, constitutes the
offense.


Reasons why criminal intent is not necessary in
crimes made by statutory enactment.

Good faith and absence of criminal intent not valid
defense in crimes punished by special laws.

Mala in se and mala prohibita distinguised

When acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in
se, even if punished under special law

Intent distinguished from motive

Motive, when relevant and when need not be
established

How motive is proved

Motive proved by the evidence

Disclosure of the motive an an aid in completing the
proof of the commission of the crim

But proof of motive alone is not sufficient to support
a conviction.

Lack of motive may be an aid in showing the
innocence of the accused.