2014 BAR REVIEWER ON

CRIMINAL LAW

BY: JUDGE MARLO CAMPANILLA

 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
PRO REO general, territorial and prospective
characteristics of criminal law are
In dubio pro reo is means "when in principles that define and demarcate the
doubt, for the accused.” Intimately related scope and limitation of the operation of
to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule criminal law. Under these three principles,
of lenity. The rule applies when the court is the operation or enforceability of criminal
faced with two possible interpretations of a law is limited to wrongful acts committed
penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the on or after its effectivity (prospectivity)
accused and another that is favorable to within the territory of the Philippines
him. The rule calls for the adoption of an (territoriality) by person living and
interpretation which is more lenient to the sojourning therein (generality).
accused (Intestate estate of Gonzales vs.
People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, GENERALITY - Generality
2010). principle is akin to territoriality principle
in the sense that the demarcating factor of
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL both principles is the territory of the
THERORY Philippines. Under generality principle,
criminal law is enforceable to person living
The positivist theory states that the or sojourning in the territory of the
basis for criminal liability is the sum total Philippines. Under the territoriality
of the social and economic phenomena to principle, criminal law is applicable only to
which the offense is expressed. The purpose criminal act committed within the territory
of penalties is to secure justice. The of the Philippines. But the concept of
penalties imposed must not only be generality is different from territoriality.
retributive but must also be reformative, to The applicability of territoriality principle
give the convict an opportunity to live a new or generality principle will depend on the
life and rejoin society as a productive and issue raised by the accused in questioning
civic-spirited member of the community. the jurisdiction of the court. If the accused
The adoption of the aspects of the Positivist attacks the jurisdiction of the court
theory is exemplified by the indeterminate because of the unique characteristic of his
sentence law, impossible crime, privilege person (e.g. he is a foreigner, military,
mitigating circumstance of minority and hermit, primitive, ambassador, legislator,
modifying circumstances, rule on President), the applicable principle is
imposition of penalties for heinous and generality. If the accused attacks the
quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya vs. Jail Warden jurisdiction of the court due to the unique
of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418- characteristic of the place where the crime
19, December 10, 2003;). was committed (e.g. the place of
commission is foreign vessel, embassy or
Under the classical theory, man is high sea) etc, the applicable principle is
essentially a moral creature with an territoriality.
absolutely free will choose between good
and evil. When he commits a felonious or 1. Military officers - The Revised
criminal act, the act is presumed to have Penal Code and special criminal laws are
been done voluntarily, i.e. with freedom, enforceable against military men living or
intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, sojourning in the Philippines. However, CA
should be adjudged or held accountable for 408 (Articles of War) which vests
wrongful acts so long as free will appears jurisdiction over members of the AFP to
unimpaired (People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. the courts-martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT
130487, June 19, 2000). Since the Revised STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
Penal Code is based on the classical school OVER THE MILITARY) did not divest the
of thought, it is the identity of the mens rea military courts of jurisdiction to try cases
which is considered the predominant involving "service-connected crimes or
consideration and, therefore, warrants the offenses" under CA 408 (Example: Mutiny
imposition of the same penalty for or sedition, quarrels, frays; disorders,
conspirators on the consequential theory breaking an arrest or escaping from
that the act of one is thereby the act of all confinement, releasing prisoners without
(Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado, G.R. No. proper authority, wrongful appropriation of
115439-41, July 16, 1997). Under this captured property, corresponding with, or
theory, the criminal liability is based on the aiding the enemy, spies, dueling, fraud
result of the felonious act (proximate cause against the government affecting matters
rule). and equipment). In fact, RA No. 7055
mandates that these service-connected
CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW crimes shall be tried by the court-martial
(Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318,
There are three characteristics of October 25, 2004). CA 408 is a law of
criminal law, to wit: (1) generality (2) preferential application since it excludes
territoriality, and (3) prospectivity. The members of the AFP from the operation of

2|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
the Revised Penal Code and special
criminal laws if the crimes committed by 3. Convention of the law of the
them are service-connected as defined by Sea - Under the Convention on the Law of
RA 7055. the Sea, the flag state of foreign merchant
vessel passing through the territorial sea
2. Consular officers - Despite the has jurisdiction over crimes committed
ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, therein. However, the Philippines can
consular officers and employees are now exercise jurisdiction to arrest any person
enjoying immunity from criminal or to conduct any investigation in
prosecution of acts performed in the connection with any crime committed on
exercise of consular function under 1967, board the ship during its passage in the
Convention on Consular Relation. Slander following cases: (1) if the consequences of
(Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865, January the crime extend to the coastal State; (2) if
28, 2000) or reckless imprudence resulting the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace
in homicide is not function-related. Consul of the country or the good order of the
is liable for committing this crime. territorial sea; (3) if the assistance of the
local authorities has been requested by the
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent
Under the principle of territoriality, the or consular officer of the flag State; or (4) if
Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes such measures are necessary for the
committed inside its territory except as suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic
provided in the treaties and laws of drugs or psychotropic substances.
preferential application.
4. Drug trafficking - Following the
1. Embassy - The ground occupied English rule, the Philippines has no
by US embassy is in fact the territory of jurisdiction over transportation of opium
the USA to which the premises belong in a foreign vessel in transit in territorial
through possession or ownership. A water of our country because possession of
person who committed a crime within the opium does not have a pernicious effect on
premises of an embassy will be prosecuted our country (U.S. vs. Look Chaw). But
under the law of Philippines because of the under the Convention of the law of the
principle of territoriality (See: Reagan vs. Sea, the Philippines can exercise
Commission on Internal Revenue, 30 jurisdiction to arrest any person or to
SCRA 968, En Banc; Answers to 2009 Bar conduct any investigation involving
Examination Questions by UP Law transportation of dangerous drugs since
Complex). However, jurisdiction of the this is a measure necessary for the
Philippines over the embassy is limited or suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic
restricted by “the principles of inviolability drugs or psychotropic substances.
of diplomatic premises”, which is a
generally accepted principle of EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - Under
international law. Warrant of arrest cannot the principle of extra-territoriality, the
be served inside US embassy without Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes
waiver of American government of its right committed outside its territory for those
under the principle of inviolability. five instances mention in Article 2 such as
crime committed in vessel of Philippines
2. English rule - There are two registry (ownership is not material),
fundamental rules in International Law function-related crime committed by
regarding crimes committed aboard a public officer (such as corruption or direct
foreign merchant vessel (not military bribery), crimes against national security
vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile (such as treason, espionage; rebellion is
territorial water (not internal or archipelagic not a crime against national security), and
water or high seas) of the Philippines to crime against law of nation such as piracy
wit: (1) French rule - Crimes committed and mutiny). In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No.
aboard a foreign merchant vessel within 111709, August 30, 2001- “Piracy is an
the territorial water of the Philippines are exception to the rule on territoriality in
subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state criminal law (Article 2). The same principle
(extra-territoriality principle) unless their applies even if accused were charged, not
commission affects the peace and security with a violation of qualified piracy under
of our country. (2) English rule – Crimes the penal code but under a special law, PD
committed aboard a foreign merchant No. 532 which penalizes piracy in
vessel within the territorial water of the Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-
Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of settled that regardless of the law
the Philippines (territoriality principle) penalizing the same, piracy is a
unless their commission does not affect its reprehensible crime against the whole
peace and security, or has no pernicious world.”
effect therein. It is the English rule that
obtains in this jurisdiction.

3|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC with a violation of the old penal law prior
- If the court in trying an accused, who to its repeal (Sindiong and Pastor, 77 Phil.
committed a crime prior to the passage of 1000; Binuya, 61 Phil. 208; U.S. vs. Reyes,
the law, should give retroactive effect to 10 Phil. 423; U.S. vs. Academia, 10 Phil.
the law provided that: (1) it is favorable to 431; Arizala vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
the accused and (2) the accused is not a 43633, September 14, 1990; Almuete, et
habitual delinquent (Article 22). Ex post al., G.R. No. L-265, February 27,19 76).
facto law - Congress in passing a law can The intention of the new law is to
insert retroactive effect provision therein decriminalize an act punishable of old law.
subject to the Constitution of ex post facto Thus, person cannot be punished for
law. If the retroactive provision of the law subversion under RA 1700, which was
has passed the constitutional test on repealed by RA 7637, even though he is a
prohibition against ex post facto law, the habitual delinquent. New regulation -
court must give retroactive effect to this Repeal with re-enactment of a penal law
law even if the accused is a habitual does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction
delinquent. Nullum crimen poena sine lege to punish persons charged with a violation
– If the law repeals a previous law or of the old penal law prior to its repeal.
provision defining a crime, the applicable Such repeal even without a saving clause
principle is not Article 22 of RPC but would not destroy criminal liability of the
nullum crimen poena sine lege (There is no accused (U.S. vs. Cana, 12 Phil. 241). The
crime when there is no law punishing it). intention of the new law is not to
Since the intention of the new law is to decriminalize an act punishable of old law
decriminalize an act punishable by the but merely to provide new regulation. If
repealed law, the accused should be the new law is favorable to the accused,
acquitted or released if the already who is not a habitual delinquent, it shall
convicted, even though he is a habitual be given retroactive effect. Example: “A”
delinquent. was charged for the crime of rape under
Article 336 of RPC for raping his minor
X committed crime under RA No. daughter. However, RA 8353 expressly
6425, the penalty for which is life repealed Article 336 but re-enacted the
imprisonment. RA No. 7659 amended RA provision on rape by reclassifying it as a
No. 6425 by prescribing the penalty of crime against person, redefining it and
reclusion temporal. Should RA No. 7659 be prescribing a graver penalty for the
given retroactive effect? Answer: Yes. The commission thereof. The repeal of Article
maximum duration of reclusion temporal is 336 does not deprive the courts of
40 years of imprisonment while life jurisdiction to try and punish “A” for rape
imprisonment has no duration. Thus, under Article 336. RA No. 8353 shall not
reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than be given retroactive effect since it is not
life imprisonment. The amendatory law, favorable to the accused.
being more lenient and favorable to the
accused than the original provisions thereof DECRIMINALIZATION OF VAGRANCY BY
should be accorded retroactive application RA NO. 10158
(People vs. Morilla, GR No. 189833,
February 05, 2014). Article 202 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by RA No. 10158
RA No. 9346 prohibits the provides:
imposition of death penalty, prescribes
reclusion perpetua in lieu of death penalty “Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. -
or life imprisonment if the special law does For the purposes of this article, women who,
not use the nomenclature of the penalties for money or profit, habitually indulge in
under RPC and declares a person sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a deemed to be prostitutes.
prescribed or reduced penalty is ineligible
for parole. This law has a retroactive effect. “Any person found guilty of any of
Penal laws which are favorable to accused the offenses covered by this article shall be
are given retroactive effect. This principle punished by arresto menor or a fine not
is embodied under Article 22 of RPC, exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of
which provides: Penal laws shall have a recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the period to prision correctional in its
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a minimum period or a fine ranging from 200
habitual criminal (People vs. Talaro, et.al., to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of
GR No. 175781, March 20, 2012, Justice the court.”
Peralta).
RA No. 10158 has decriminalized
REPEAL: Decriminalization - Repeal vagrancy by omitting portions of Article 202
of a penal law deprives the courts of involving such crime. A reading of the
jurisdiction to punish persons charged Senate deliberation pertaining to the

4|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
passage of law decriminalizing vagrancy committed a crime on a mistaken belief, to
shows that they considered vagrants as enjoy the benefit of the justifying
victims of poverty and that the law on circumstance of self-defense (United States
vagrancy serves to oppress the very people vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488), defense of
that the government sought to protect. In person and right (US vs. Bautista, G.R. No.
view of the new policy of the State 10678 August 17, 1915), defense of honor
decriminalizing vagrancy, which is (United States vs. Apego, 23 Phil. 391),
embodied in RA No. 10158, ordinance, performance of duty, (People vs.
which punishes vagrancy, should Mamasalaya, G.R. No.L-4911, February
be declared as contrary to law, and hence, 10, 1953), and the exempting
invalid. Settled is the rule that what the circumstance of obedience of an order of
national legislature expressly allows by law, superior officer (People vs. Beronilla, G.R.
a local legislature may not disallow by No. L-4445, February 28, 1955). In Ah
ordinance or resolution (Lina vs. Pana, G.R. Chong, the accused, who believed that the
No. 129093, August 30, 2001). The spring victim was a robber and that his life was in
cannot rise higher than its source. As aptly danger because of the commencement of
explained by Justice Nachura in his book, unlawful aggression, was acquitted due to
“An ordinance must not be contrary to the mistake of fact doctrine in relation to the
Constitution or law. Prohibited activities may rule on self-defense. In Oanis vs. Galanta,
not be legalized in the guise of regulation; the accused, who believed that the
activities allowed by law cannot be sleeping victim is a notorious criminal to
prohibited, only regulated.” Moreover, be arrested by them, was held guilty of
Section 4 of RA No. 10158 provides that “All murder for shooting him since the mistake
laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, of fact principle in relation to performance
rules and regulations and other issuances, of duty is not applicable. Second element
or any part thereof, inconsistent with this is not present since they did not ascertain
Act are hereby repealed, modified or first his identify despite opportunity. The
amended accordingly.” An ordinance on first element is not likewise present since
vagrancy is a law, which is inconsistent the killing of victim believed to be a
with RA No. 10158. Hence, such local criminal was not necessary consequence of
statute is deemed repealed. the due performance of duty of the
accused as police officers.
RA No. 10158 shall be given
retroactive effect even if the offender or The gist of the theft is the intent to
accused is a habitual delinquent. Section 2 deprive another of his property in a
of the said law provides “All pending cases chattel, either for gain or out of
under the provisions of Article 202 of the wantonness or malice to deprive another of
Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its his right in the thing taken. This cannot be
amendment by this Act shall be dismissed where the taker honestly believes the
upon effectivity of this Act” while Section 3 property is his own or that of another, and
thereof states “All persons serving sentence that he has a right to take possession of it
for violation of the provisions of Article 202 for himself or for another, for the
of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior protection of the latter. However, the belief
to its amendment by this Act shall be of the accused of his ownership over the
immediately released upon effectivity of this property must be honest and in good faith
Act: Provided, That they are not serving and not a mere sham or pretense. If the
sentence or detained for any other offense or claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, taking
felony.” Article 22 of the Revised Penal the property of another will not protect the
Code, which requires that the offender taker (Gaviola vs. People, G.R. No. 163927,
must not be a habitual delinquent to give January 27, 2006). This belief of
retroactive effect to a penal law, is not ownership as a defense in theft is in
applicable since Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. accordance with the mistake of fact
10158 expressly provide retroactive doctrine.
application to the law without distinction,
whether the offender is a habitual X informed the authorities regarding
delinquent or not. armed rebel elements on board a vehicle in
a certain barangay. Several policemen,
MISTAKE OF FACT PRINCIPLE: Barangay officers and members of the Civil
Home Defense Force (CHDF) responded to
Requisites: (1) That the acts done information and set a check point. X
would have been lawful had the facts been pointed at an approaching jitney occupied
as the accused believed them to be (2) that by rebels. They flagged down the vehicle but
the mistake of fact is not due to negligence the same did not stop. They attacked the
or unlawful intent of the offender. The vehicle with automatic weapons by firing
Supreme Court in several cases had directly thereat. One died and another was
applied the “mistake of fact” doctrine, wounded. It turned out however that the
which allowed the accused, who victims are unarmed innocent civilians. Are

5|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
those responsible for the death and injuries CRIMINAL INTENT – To be held
of the victims liable for homicide? Is the liable for intentional felony, the offender
doctrine of mistake of fact applicable? must commit the act prohibited by RPC
with specific criminal intent and general
Answer: They are liable for homicide criminal intent. General criminal intent
and attempted homicide. The duty of those (dolo in Article 3 of RPC) is an element of
manning the check point is to identify the all crimes but malice is properly applied
occupants of their suspect vehicle and only to deliberate acts done on purpose
search for firearms inside it to validate the and with design. Evil intent must unite
information they had received; they may with an unlawful act for there to be a
even effect a bloodless arrest. While, felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives
rebellion is a continuing offense, they rise to a presumption of malice by intent.
cannot open fire at or kill the suspects On the other hand, specific intent is a
under any and all circumstances. There is definite and actual purpose to accomplish
no evidence showing that they were placed some particular thing. In estafa, the
in real mortal danger in the presence of the specific intent is to defraud, in homicide
victims. Hence, the mistake of fact principle intent to kill, in theft intent to gain
is not applicable since there is negligence or (Recuerdo vs. People, G.R. No. 168217,
bad faith on their part (Yapyucu vs. June 27, 2006, ). In the US vs. Ah Chong,
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 120744-46, June the accused was acquitted because of
25, 2012, Justice Peralta). mistake of fact principle even though the
evidence showed that he attacked the
VOLUNTARINESS – Concurrence deceased with intent to kill (United States
of freedom, intelligence and intent makes vs. Apego, G.R. No. 7929, November 8,
up the “criminal mind” behind the 1912; Dissenting opinion of J. Trent),
“criminal act.” Thus, to constitute a crime, which was established by the statement of
the act must, generally and in most cases, the accused "If you enter the room I will kill
be accompanied by a criminal intent. you." Article 249 (homicide) should be read
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No in relation to Article 3. The accused was
crime is committed if the mind of the acquitted not because of the absence of
person performing the act complained of is intent to kill (specific intent) but by reason
innocent (People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. of lack of general intent (dolo or malice).
104238-58, June 3, 2004). Voluntariness
is an element of crime, whether committed PRESUMED MALICE - The general
by dolo or culpa or punishable under criminal intent (malice) is presumed from
special law. The act to be considered a the criminal act and in the absence of any
crime must be committed with freedom general intent is relied upon as a defense,
and intelligence. In addition to such absence must be proved by the
voluntariness, intentional felony must be accused (Ah Chong case, the accused was
committed with dolo (malice), culpable able to rebut the presumption of general
felony with culpa, and mala prohibita criminal intent or malice). Generally, a
under special law with intent to perpetrate specific intent is not presumed. Its
the act or with specific intent (such as existence, as a matter of fact, must be
animus possidendi in illegal possession of proved by the State just as any other
firearm). Presumption of voluntariness: In essential element. This may be shown,
the determination of the culpability of however, by the nature of the act, the
every criminal actor, voluntariness is an circumstances under which it was
essential element. Without it, the committed, the means employed and the
imputation of criminal responsibility and motive of the accused (Recuerdo vs.
the imposition of the corresponding People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, ).
penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The There are other specific intents that are
human mind is an entity, and presumed. If a person died due to violence,
understanding it is not purely an intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
intellectual process but is dependent to a Intent to gain is presumed from taking
large degree upon emotional and property without consent of owner.
psychological appreciation. A man’s act is
presumed voluntary. It is improper to MOTIVE
assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were
done unconsciously, for the moral and Doubt as to the identity of the
legal presumption is that every person is culprit - Motive gains importance only
presumed to be of sound mind, or that when the identity of the assailant is in
freedom and intelligence constitute the doubt. As held in a long line of cases, the
normal condition of a person (People vs. prosecution does not need to prove the
Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, motive of the accused when the latter has
2004). been identified as the author of the crime.
The accused was positively identified by
witnesses. Thus, the prosecution did not

6|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
have to identify and prove the motive for the constitutive of attempted coercion. Note:
killing. It is a matter of judicial knowledge The accused were found guilty of illegal
that persons have been killed for no detention. Taking the victim reveals the
apparent reason at all, and that friendship evident intention of the accused to deprive
or even relationship is no deterrent to the the liberty of the latter, which is the mens
commission of a crime. The lack or absence rea in illegal detention. In U.S. vs. Simeon,
of motive for committing the crime does not G.R. No. 1603, April 15, 1904 - Raising a
preclude conviction where there are reliable bolo and hacking the victim with it are
witnesses who fully and satisfactorily acts of execution in homicide or murder.
identified the petitioner as the perpetrator Such acts together with other
of the felony (Kummer vs. People, GR No. circumstance may reveal intent to kill.
174461, September 11, 2013). However, raising bolo alone is susceptible
to different interpretation. The intention of
Circumstantial or inconclusive the offender may either to kill the victim or
evidence - Indeed, motive becomes merely to threaten him. Since doubt
material when the evidence is should be interpreted in favor of the
circumstantial or inconclusive, and there is accused, such act should be considered to
some doubt on whether a crime has been have been made with intent to threaten
committed or whether the accused has the victim. Thus, the crime commit is
committed it. The following circumstantial merely threat and not attempted homicide;
evidence is sufficient to convict accused:
1. Accused had motive to kill the deceased PROXIMATE CAUSE
because during the altercation the latter
slapped and hit him with a bamboo, Proximate cause is the primary or
prompting Romulo to get mad at the moving cause of the death of the victim; it
deceased; 2. Accused was chased by the is the cause, which in the natural and
deceased eastward after the slapping and continuous sequence unbroken with any
hitting incident; 3. Said accused was the “efficient intervening cause” produces
last person seen with the deceased just death and without which the fatal result
before he died; (4) Accused and Antonio could not have happened. It is the cause,
Trinidad surrendered to police authorities which is the nearest in the order of
with the samurai; (5) Some of the wounds responsible causation (Black’s Law
inflicted on the deceased were caused by a Dictionary). Intervening cause - The direct
bolo or a knife. (Trinidad vs. People, GR No. relation between the intentional felony and
192241, June 13, 2012, Justice Peralta). death may be broken by efficient
intervening cause or an active force which
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE is either a distinct act or fact absolutely
DOCTRINE – In People vs. Lamahang, foreign from the felonious act of the
G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935, En Banc offender. Lightning that kills the injured
- Accused who was caught in the act of victim or tetanus infecting the victim
making an opening with an iron bar on the several days after the infliction of injuries,
wall of a store was held guilty of attempted or voluntary immersing the wounds to
trespassing and not attempted robbery. aggravate the crime committed by accused
The act of making an opening on the wall is an intervening cause. Thus, the accused
of the store is an overt act of trespassing is liable for physical injuries because of
since it reveals an evident intention to the intervening cause rule. On the other
enter by means of force said store against hand, carelessness of the victim, or
the will of its owner. However, it is not an involuntary removal of the drainage, lack
overt act of robbery since the intention of of proper treatment is not an intervening
the accused once he succeeded in entering cause. Hence, the accused is liable for the
the store is not determinate; it is subject to death because of the proximate cause rule.
different interpretations. His final objective
could be to rob, to cause physical injury to If the victim died due to tetanus of
its occupants, or to commit any other which he was infected when the accused
offense. In sum, the crime the he intended inflicted injuries upon him, the crime
to commit inside the store is committed is homicide (People vs. Cornel,
indeterminate, and thus, an attempt to G.R. No. L-204, May 16, 1947). If the
commit it is not punishable as attempted victim died due to tetanus of which he was
felony. In People vs. Crisostomo, et al., infected after the accused inflicted injuries
G.R. No. L-19034, February 17 1923 – The upon him, the crime committed is physical
accused dragged the victim to a rice field. injuries. The accused is not liable for
Fortunately, she was saved from her homicide because tetanus is an efficient
captors. It was held that the purpose of intervening cause. Thus, the proximate
the accused in taking away the offended cause of the death of the victim is not the
party could be to injure or affront her or to infliction of injuries. In Villacorta vs.
compel her through force to marry one of People, G.R. No. 186412, September 7,
the accused. Thus, the acts are not 2011, there had been an interval of 22 days

7|Page
 2014 BAR REVIEWER ON CRIMINAL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LAW CENTER JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA
between the date of the stabbing and the against the intended victim and victim
date when victim was rushed to hospital, injured due to aberratio ictus shall be
exhibiting symptoms of severe tetanus made a complex crime (compound crime).
infection. Since the victim was infected of The court shall impose the penalty for the
severe tetanus, he died the next day. The most serious crime in its maximum period.
incubation period of severe tetanus is less
than 14 days. Hence, he could not have The circumstance of aberratio ictus
been infected at the time of the stabbing (mistake in the blow) can neither exempt
since that incident occurred 22 days before the accused from criminal responsibility
the victim was rushed to the hospital. The nor mitigate his criminal liability. Under
infection of victim’s stab wound by tetanus Article 4 of RPC, criminal liability is
was an efficient intervening cause. The incurred by any person committing a felony
accused was held liable for physical although the wrongful act done be different
injuries. from that which he intended (Matic vs.
People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23,
Proximate cause has been defined 2011).
as "that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case
efficient intervening cause, produces the of praeter intentionem, person is
injury, and without which the result would criminally responsible for committing an
not have occurred." Although there was no intentional felony although its wrongful
direct injury on his vital organs of the consequence is graver than that intended.
victim, his wounds affected his kidneys, Requisites: In order to make a person
causing multiple organ failure and criminally liable under Article 4 (1) in case
eventually his death. Accused is liable for of praeter intentionem, the following
homicide. Without the stab wounds, the requisites must be present: (1) Offender
victim could not have been afflicted with an committed an intentional felony; (2) The
infection which later on caused multiple wrongful act done, which is graver than
organ failure that caused his death. The that intended, is the direct, natural and
offender is criminally liable for the death of logical consequence of the felony
the victim if his delictual act caused, committed by the offender. Praeter
accelerated or contributed to the death of intentionem may be appreciated as
the victim (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
181052, November 14, 2012, Justice commit so grave a wrong than that
Peralta). committed.

ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of When death resulted, even if there was

error in personae, person is criminally no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
responsible for committing an intentional physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of
felony although the consequent victim is personal violence the penal law looks
different from that intended due to particularly to the material results following the
mistake of identity. Requisites: In order to unlawful act and holds the aggressor
make a person criminally liable in case of responsible for all the consequences thereof. He
error in personae, the following requisites who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
must be present: (1) Offender committed the evil caused (Seguritan vs. People, G.R.
an intentional felony; (2) The consequent No. 172896, April 19, 2010).
victim against whom the felony was
directed is different from that intended due 1. Mitigating circumstance - The
to mistake of identity. If the penalty for the mitigating circumstance that “the offender
intended crime is different from that of the had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
committed crime, the court shall impose as that committed” or praeter intentionem is
the penalty for the intended crime or obtaining when there is a notable disparity
committed crime, whichever is lesser. between the means employed by the
accused to commit a wrong and the
ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of resulting crime committed. The intention of
aberratio ictus, person is criminally the accused at the time of the commission
responsible for committing an intentional of the crime is manifested from the weapon
felony although the consequent victim is used, the mode of attack employed and the
different from that intended due to injury sustained by the victim (People vs.
mistake of blow. Requisites: In order to Maglian, G.R. No. 189834, March 30,
make a person criminally liable in case of 2011).The mitigating circumstance of praeter
aberratio ictus, the following requisites intentionem cannot be appreciated if the acts
must be present: (1) Offender committed employed by accused were reasonably sufficient
an intentional felony; (2) The consequent to produce and did actually produce the death
victim against whom the felony was of the victim (People vs. Sales, G.R. No.
directed is different from that intended due 177218, October 3, 2011).
to mistake of blow. The crime committed

8|Page