Aberratio Ictus, Error in

Personam, and Praeter

Intentionem
January 01, 2017

Article 4 of the Revised Penal code

enumerates two instances for criminal

liabilities to be incurred, and they are:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito)

although the wrongful act done be different

from that which he intended.

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.

The first paragraph is the topic of this article,

and under the first paragraph there are 3

causes where the offender is liable even if the

crime committed is different from which that

is intended. These are, Aberratio Ictus, Error

in Personam, Praeter Intentionem. Let us

discuss them one by one.

ABERRATIO ICTUS:

In Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow, it

presupposes 3 persons present in the crime

scene. They are the offender, intended victim,

and the innocent person who was injured by

reason of his act committed by mistake.

Illustration:

X with intent to kill shoots Y but Y was not hit

by the bullet and the same bullet hit another

person who died as a consequence.

ERROR IN PERSONAM:

This happens if the person he injured is not

the intended victim.

Illustration:

X wanted to kill his enemy Y. He knows that, Y

is always passing through a small alley

coming from his office. So X posted himself of

the opposite side of the alley, then in the

afternoon, a person whom he believes was Y

emerge from the another end of the alley. So

he points his pistol and shouted “Y this is

your end” and squeezed the trigger and the

man was hit by the bullet and fell on the

ground and died. When X approached the

victim he was surprised it was not Y whom he

had killed, but his own father who happens

who have a physical resemblance with Y.

So here may be charge with Parricide. He

could not validly invoke the defense that, he

has no intent to kill his own father, because it

will not hold water. This is for the reason that,

at the time he shoots at that person whom he

believes his enemy, he was already

committing a felony, although the wrong

done is not what he intended.

Q. How shall the offender be penalized?

A. Article 49 states that, when the crime is

committed as a result of error in personam.

The penalty to be imposed, that which pertain

to the crime actually committed or the crime

he intended to commit whichever is lesser but

to be imposed in its maximum period.

In the example given, where X intends to kill Y

and Y had been killed it could have been

homicide the penalty would have been

reclusion temporal, but because of mistake of

Identity that crime he committed is Parricide

violation of Article 246. The penalty here is

reclusion perpetua.

PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED:

To apply the penalty, he will be charged with

parricide, and once he has been convicted the

penalty of parricide will not be imposed by

him, because under the rule, the penalty for

the intending crime which is lesser to be

imposed. So it is RECLUSION TEMPORAL IN

ITS MAXIUM.

DISTINGUISH ERROR IN PERSONAM FROM

ABERATIO ICTUS:

In Aberratio Ictus, there are 3 persons present

in the scene of the crime, but in the case of

Error in Personam there are only 2 persons

present in the scene of the crime.

SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AND

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

In effect, the case of error in personam or

mistake in identity is a special mitigating

circumstance. Since the law says that, the

penalty for a lesser offense for the crime shall

be imposed, but in Aberratio Ictus the penalty

for the most serious crime shall be imposed

and to be applied in its maximum period.

So in effect, Aberratio Ictus is a SPECIAL

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
POLITICUS.ME
SUBSCRIBE
PRAETER INTENTIONEM

Example: When A always meets B in the

presence of many people. A would ridicule B.

So because of that, one time B lost his

patience. So he approached A and B throw a

fistic blow in the face of A, but because of the

strong impact A loses his balance and A fall in

the cemented floor and cause internal

hemorrhage resulting to his death.

Q. Is B liable for homicide?

A. Under the principle of Praeter Intertionem,

he shall be liable for homicide, but he shall be

entitled to a MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

14
that is found under paragraph 3 of the Article
SHARES
3, “That he did not intend to commit so grave

a wrong than what has been committed.” He

did not intend to kill the victim, what he

wants is to inflict physical harm to the victim.

However, such fistic blow is the cause that

made A hit the cemented floor and died. “He

who is the cause of the cause is the cause of

the evil caused.” A person incurred a criminal

liability when he commits a felony, although

the wrongful act done is different from that

which he intended. When he throw a fistic

blow hitting the victim, he already commits a

felony and that is Physical Injury. However,

the wrong done went beyond the intent in

which cause the victims death. In that case,

that is only simple homicide, and applying

one mitigating circumstance that he does not

intend to commit so grave a wrong. The

penalty for homicide shall be fixed in its

minimum period which is, Reclusion temporal

in its minimum.

Comment with Facebook

0 Comments Sort by Newest

Add a comment...

Facebook Comments Plugin

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE CRIMINAL LAW

FIRST DEGREE MURDERS HOMICIDE DEFINITION

HOMICIDE LAWYER HOMICIDE MURDER

MURDER CRIMINAL LAW REVISED PENAL CODE

RELATED POSTS:

Criminal Law: Criminal Law:

Understanding IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Article...

Criminal Law: DIFFERENCE

Distinction BETWEEN MISTAKE
Between M... OF FACT ...

(c) Politicus.me

Comments Community !
1 Login

$ Recommend Sort by Best

Start the discussion…

LOG IN WITH

OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Be the first to comment.

✉ Subscribe # Privacy Policy

Popular Posts

TAXATION LAW 2017 BAR EXAM QUESTIONS

I. SMZ, Inc., is a VAT-registered enterprise engaged in the

general construction business. HP International contracts
the services of SMZ, Inc. to construct HP International’s
factory building located in the Laguna Techno Park, a …

POLITICAL LAW 2017 BAR QUESTION

I. A priority thrust of the Administration is the change of

the form of government from unitary to federal. The
change can be effected only through constitutional
amendment or revision. (a)What are the methods of …

Criminal law: IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Under article 4, these are the means on how a person can

incur criminal liability. And under paragraph 2 it pertains
to IMPOSSIBLE CRIME.
Basically, Impossible crime is not a felony, because it is just
…

CIVIL LAW 2017 BAR EXAM QUESTION

I. State whether the following marital unions are valid,

void, or voidable, and give the corresponding justifications
for your answer:
a. Ador and Becky’s marriage wherein Ador was afflicted …

Powered by Blogger

(C) 2017 POLITICUS.ME. Some Rights Reserved