RELATE ARTICLES 4, 49 AND 59:

Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error
in persona is not a mitigating circumstance
2. Mistake in blow hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous

Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

instances (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking together. A
wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.

1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim,

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting

that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual

felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.

victim are both at the scene of the crime.

Causes which produce a different result:

aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more
serious crime is imposed in the maximum period.

1. Mistake in identity of the victim injuring one person who is mistaken for another (this
is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C

3. Injurious result is greater than that intended causing injury graver than intended or
expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a

because he (A) mistook C for B.

wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to injure B. However, B died.

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual
praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order

victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.
How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity
between the means employed and the resulting felony

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was
intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does
not affect the criminal liability of the offender.
In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a

In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated
by criminal intent.

Requisites:

different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the
crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for

1. the felony was intentionally committed

the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where

2. the felony is the proximate cause of the wrong done

Doctrine of Proximate Cause such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or

of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would

property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account

necessarily produce the event.

of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Requisites:

Requisites: (IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)

1. the direct, natural, and logical cause

1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property

2. produces the injury or damage

2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law

3. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause

3. There was criminal intent

4. without which the result would not have occurred

4. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means were

employed.

Proximate Cause is negated by:

Notes:

1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.

1. Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing

2. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.

another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
2. The law intends to punish the criminal intent.

proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the

3. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

offended party. It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief
that made him risk himself.

Requisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death Where there has been an injury

Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.

Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, etc.

Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A shot

inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the

B. A is liable. If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.

presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime
1. victim was in normal health

could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts,

2. death ensued within a reasonable time

employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted

The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate
cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.

felony.

Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B. However, B survived because A

2.

used small quantities of poison frustrated murder.

corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the

Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out

former shall be imposed in its maximum period.

because the gun was empty. A is liable.

Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible
crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: Is an
impossible crime committed?, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If really the
facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then
you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.

If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that

3.

The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if

the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of
another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in
which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be
imposed in its maximum period.

If the question asked is Is he liable for an impossible crime?, this is a catching

liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act

question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender
constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible

done be different from that which he intended

crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him.
this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to teach the offender a lesson
because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with
some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe,
you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal
law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some
other provision of the Revised Penal Code.

Art 49 has reference to the provision in the 1st par of Art 4 which provides that criminal

Art 49 applicable only in cases when there is a mistake in identity of the victim of the
crime and the penalty for the crime committed is different from that for the crime
intended to be committed.

Art 49 also has no application where a more serious consequence not intended by the
offender befalls the same person.

Example: Juan only wanted to inflict a wound upon Pedro but because he lost control of his
right arm, he killed Pedro. Art 49 not applicable.

from that intended. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that

ART 49
Lesser penalty to be imposed in its maximum
pd

which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:

Notes:

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different

1.

If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that

corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

ART 48
Penalty for the more serious crime shall be
imposed in its maximum pd

1. Art. 49 has reference to Art. 4(1). It applies only when there is error in personae.
2. In Art. 49 (Paragraphs 1 and 2) the lower penalty in its maximum period is always
imposed.

3. In Par. 3 the penalty for the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period. This rule is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in view

which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

of the fact that the same act also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.

2 cases wherein the accomplice is punished w/ the same penalty imposed upon the
principal

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible. When the person intending to commit an
offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless
the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature
one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are

a)

confidential relationship shall cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of

lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors, white slave trade or abduction.
b)

essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind

degree of criminality shown by the offender.

Example: Juan fired a revolver at Pedro at the distance of 2 kilometers. This shoes stupidity
rather than danger. Juan should not be punished as there is no social danger nor degree of
criminality.
But if Juan was a convicted felon, act may be punished.

Article limited to those cases of grave and less grave felonies.

Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. The provisions
contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in

Accessory punished as principal: Art 142 punishes an accessory for knowingly

concealed certain evil practices.

him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Basis for the imposition of proper penalty in impossible crimes: sopcial danger and

one who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight illegal detention.

the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon

ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who by abuse of authority or

Cases when instead of a penalty 2 degrees lower, one degree for accessory:

a)

knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged signature or stamp of the President

b)

illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank note

c)

using a falsified document

d)

using a falsified dispatch