II.A.

Felonies - How Committed

Thursday, 23 August 2018 9:07 PM

1. Dolo
RPC Art. 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 from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
lack of skill.

Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by law

Act:
• any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being
unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its production
is sufficient
• Act must have direct connection with the felony intended to be committed
• Only external act is punishable -- internal acts (i.e. intent) are beyond the scope of
penal law

Omission:
• Inaction or failure to perform a positive duty one is bound to do
• There must be a law requiring the performance of an act
○ e.g. failure to report a crime is NOT a crime in itself

Elements of Felonies
1. There must be an act or omission
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
3. That the act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo or culpa
ALSO: Voluntariness of act or omission

Classification of felonies
1. Intentional felony
a. Act or omission is malicious, performed with deliberate intent (malice)
 3. That the act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of dolo or culpa
ALSO: Voluntariness of act or omission

Classification of felonies
1. Intentional felony
a. Act or omission is malicious, performed with deliberate intent (malice)
b. When the offender has the intention to do an injury to the person, property,
or right of another
2. Culpable felony
a. Act or omission is not malicious or unintentional
b. When the person causes an injury, without intention to cause an evil, the
person may be held liable for culpable felony
c. May be due to imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, lack of skill
i. Imprudence usually involves lack of skill
ii. Negligence usually involves lack of foresight
d. Reason for punishing this: man must use common sense and exercise due
reflection in all his acts

Requisites
1. Freedom
a. Voluntariness of action or omission is required, otherwise the person is just
like a tool used
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTOS NON EST MEUS ACTUS
b. person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force is exempt from
criminal liability
c. Person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear or an equal or
greater injury is exempt from criminal liability
2. Intelligence
a. Refers to ability to determine the morality of human acts (discernment)
3. Intent and Motive
a. Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of
an unlawful act
i. Known as the PRESUMPTION OF CRIMINAL INTENT
1) 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
ii. Presupposes the exercise of freedom and use of intelligence
iii. Requires positive identification to apply
iv. The existence of intent is shown by overt acts/commission of an
unlawful act
v. Fails in the face of evidence proving the contrary
vi. Exemption: ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA
1) A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION and PRESUMPTION OF
INTENT

(People v. Delos Santos)

Delos Santos killed Rod Flores during drinking session

Accused was identified by several witnesses who

knew the accused before the incident through seeing
the accused in the barangay (neighbor)

Inconsistencies were:
Where the stab wounds are (manner)
Time when accused joined the drinking session

NOTE: no inconsistency on identity of the accused

SC held that the inconsistencies aren't substantial to

the identification and understandable in a traumatic
situation

(Guiyab v. People)

Nipple case -- stabbed above nipple

Madriaga escaped while Bacani died, then Madriaga

identified Guiyab later
 iii. Requires positive identification to apply
iv. The existence of intent is shown by overt acts/commission of an
unlawful act
v. Fails in the face of evidence proving the contrary
vi. Exemption: ACTUS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA
1) A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing to
act complained be innocent
2) presumption does not arise from the proof of the commission if
the act is not unlawful --- done in good faith
b. Easiest element to prove (because only needs that the act or omission be
done to hold presumption up)
c. General and Specific Intent
General Intent -- offender intended the conduct of the act only (not an
accident)
Key words: knowingly, voluntarily
Specific Intent -- offender intended the conduct and the result both
(motive helps)
Example: murder, forgery, embezzlement, inchoate crimes (SAC
crimes)
d. Motive --
i. Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite
result. Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such
result.
1) Motive to be considered but not essential because crimes can
also be committed with no reason at all
ii. not an element of a felony but may be relevant, based on the following
guidelines:
Not Necessary Necessary
Positively/convincingly identified Identity in dispute (no positive
identification)
Defendant admits crime Identification of accused is from an
unreliable source
No longer any doubt that the When there are two antagonistic
defendant was the culprit theories
Sufficient evidence established No eye witnesses
Circumstantial evidence only

4. Mistake of Fact
Ignoratia facti excusat -- ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from
criminal liability
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent, which
(Guiyab v. People)

Nipple case -- stabbed above nipple

Madriaga escaped while Bacani died, then Madriaga

identified Guiyab later

Witness did not know the accused before the incident

(name only fed by police later)

Other witness (SP04) identified Guiyab

Law DOES NOT REQUIRE the witness to know the

accused PERSONALLY for positive identification

(People v Temblor)

Agaw armas sari-sari store killing

Wife identified NPA agents (2 pax) from 1 meter away

(People v. Hassan)

15 year old suspect took kid to hospital (alone) to be

identified by the witness

Basis for conviction -- identification by the witness

BUT -- no other suspect pursued, and identification

done without counsel present

No presumption of criminal intent imposed because

no credible positive identification. Motive should be
considered to prove intent.

Medico-legal evidence also shows that physical

evidence is stabbing in front rather than testimony
that stabbing is behind

(People v Webb G.R.176389)

Vizconde massacre

Credibility of witness was assailed; alibi upheld

 4. Mistake of Fact
Ignoratia facti excusat -- ignorance or mistake of fact relieves the accused from
criminal liability
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent, which
arises upon the commission of a felonious act
Defense Not a defense
Had the facts been as they believed Mistake of identity when there is
them to be… enough time to ascertain correct identity
1. Act or omission is lawful (People v. Oanis)
2. Act of omission not done with
criminal intent -- good faith doctrine
3. Act or omission done without fault or
carelessness
Mistake of identity when there is no
time to ascertain correct identity (US v.
Ah Chong)

5. Culpa
• Versus dolo -- accidental (no intent) but still done voluntarily (but instead of intent
there is negligence, imprudence, lack of skill or lack of foresight)

RPC Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. —

Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been
intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would
have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the
penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.

Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which
would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor
in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious
felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.

When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but
which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.

A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any
(People v Webb G.R.176389)

Vizconde massacre

Credibility of witness was assailed; alibi upheld

(Manuel v. People)

Bigamy case -- over 20 years of separation from the

first wife

NOTE: civil interdiction references in Civil Code and

Family Code refer only to termination of parental
authority and to separation of conjugal property (does
not terminate marriage)

Mens rea presumed because the good faith

assumption did not hold up -- he did not do positive
act of seeking judicial declaration of the presumptive
death of his first wife (cannot claim ignorance of the
law)
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in
damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging
from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but
which shall in no case be less than twenty-five pesos.

A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any
person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if
done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:

1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to apply.chanrobles virtual law library
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to
death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do

an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act,
taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in
which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manifest.

The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be
imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such
help as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21,
1957).