b. Constructive intent (Culpa) Art. 3 & Art.

365 of RPC
Elements of Culpa:
(a.)
Intelligence
(b.)
Voluntariness
(c.)Imprudence or lack of skill:
a. The lack of action to prevent wrongful act or failure to make the
necessary precaution to avoid injury
b. State of mind: Person is aware of the consequences but does not
modify action to avoid injury (injurer consciously puts people in
harms way)
Negligence or lack of foresight
a. The lack of perception or the failure to pay proper attention and
due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage impending
b. Failure to foresee a danger that an ordinary careful person would
foresee
c. Basic carefulness does not require one to see into the future, only
with diligence can one see a reasonably foreseeable danger or
harm
d. State of mind: Person is unaware of possible risks associated with
an action
e. Every act should be done with reasonable care
f. Why do we punish these people? They unconsciously put people in
harms way. Had they exercised reasonable care, they wouldve
known or become aware of the consequences. They did not fulfill
their responsibility of care for others.
(d.)
Accident: Even if reasonable care was exerted, person could not
foresee danger; or even if the danger was foresaw, it could not have been
avoided

More on Culpa:
- It is also a state of mind
- Reason for punishing culpa: others can be harmed by the imprudence or
negligence of others.
- Everyone wants to be safe, to be free from harm therefore, others should
take the necessary precaution so as not to harm others.
- It is the duty of man to be cautious, careful and prudent if not from
instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment
- NOTE: Culpa requires RESULT, someone must be harmed.
- Criminal intent and the will to commit a crime are always presumed to exist on
the part of the person who executes a felony unless the contrary shall appear.

People v Pugay
Facts: The deceased Miranda, a 25-year-old retardate, and the accused Pugay
were friends. On the evening of May 19, 1982, while a town fiesta was being held
in the public plaza, the group of accused Pugay and Samson saw the deceased
walking nearby, and started making fun of him. Not content with what they were
doing, accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of a
ferries wheel and poured its contents on the body of Miranda. Then, the accused
Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.
Issue: WoN the respondents acted with deliberate intent or lack of reasonable
care or foresight?
Held: Where there is nothing in the records showing that there was previous
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose between the two accused immediately
before the commission of the crime, where there was no animosity between the
deceased and the accused and it is clear that the accused merely wanted to
make fun of the deceased, the respective criminal responsibility of the accused
arising from different acts directed against the deceased is individual and not
collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.
Pugay should have known that what he was pouring on Miranda was gasoline
because of its smell. He failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid the
consequences of his actions and exposed Miranda to danger and injury. Pugay is
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Samson just wanted to set Mirandas clothes on fire but this doesnt relieve him
of criminal liability (Art. 4). Samson is guilty of homicide credited with ordinary
mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Gabion testified that accused were stunned when they noticed Miranda burning
Malum prohibitum: - acts or omissions that are wrong because a special
statute punishes them.
- Mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the
affairs of society (i.e. Laws on possession)
- Intent is immaterial
- Good faith not a valid defense
Mala in se: - acts or omissions that are morally wrong
- Criminal intent governs
- Penalized by RPC
General Rule between Dolo & Culpa: Felonies by Dolo deserve greater
punishment than those resulting from Culpa. However, there are certain
exemptions e.g. Malversation of Public funds which penalizes offender with same
gravity regardless if done with dolo or culpa.
General Rule between Imprudence & Negligence: Imprudence constitutes
greater punishment than negligence primarily because in the former the offender
is aware of the possible consequences of his action.
The 3 Forms of Mental Element (Mens Rea)

Dolo: - Person consciously creates hard e.g. shoot a man

Imprudence: - Person consciously placed others at risk e.g. shoots a pig,
well aware than a man was beside it
Negligence: - Person unconsciously creates harm e.g. shoots a pig unaware
than a man was beside it
Note: Art III provides that there is fault when the wrong act results from;
therefore, to acquire criminal liability or to be liable to a culpable felony, the
presence of harm is required. What is punished is the result brought about by
imprudence or negligence (e.g. homicide through reckless imprudence is very
different from homicide as a felony; the homicide in the former takes a more
general sense). Usually culpable felonies take the form: result through reckless
imprudence/negligence.
Dolo and Culpa can be present in a particular result (People v Pugay); however,
Dolo and Culpa cannot be present in a specific act by a single person. One can
only act with Dolo or Culpa.