Roseller Sasis II
and determine a case.
LM3/ 1-I
CRIMINAL LAW (LAW SCHOOL EDITION)
DEFINITIONS
Criminal Law – Branch of public law which
defines criminal offenses and prescribes specific
punishment for them. It is those acts of the
legislature which prohibit certain acts and
establish penalties for their violations; or those
that define crimes, treat of their nature and
provide for their punishment.
CRIMES – Are acts or omissions which are
punishable under the RPC and special laws.
FELONIES – Acts or omissions punishable under
the RPC.
OFFENSE – Act or omission that is defined and
punished under special laws or special penal
laws.
INFRACTION OF THE LAWS – A violation of
municipal ordinances or local ordinances.
ORDINANCES – A regulation that is only good for
a certain, definite and limited territory such as
town, municipality or where the same is an
ordinance of a province or a resolution of the
province.
ACT – Any body movement tenting to produce
some effect in the external world.
OMISSION – is inaction, the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound to do. There
must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act.
MALA IN SE – These are the crimes which involve
moral turpitude and are punishable under
revised penal code
MALUM PROHIBITUM – A fact that’s it’s in
violation of a special penal law.
VENUE – An essential element of jurisdiction
JURISDICTION – Authority of the court to hear
CONTINUOUS CRIME – Crimes that are even
committed only for the first time but then the
offender continuous to commit the same unless
he has already renounced his belief for his
allegiance to a association or party.
CONTINUING CRIME – A crime which requires
only one criminal intent.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME – Committed by any person
performing an act which would be an offensive
against persons or property, were it not for
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectively means.
DUE PROCESS – It is the compliance with the
requirements of fair play, or the right of any
person to be given notice and be heard before
he is condemned for an act or omission defined
and punished by law.
EX POST FACTO LAW – A penal law which is given
retroactive application to the prejudice of the
accused. Hence, even if the penal law is made to
apply retroactively if it is favorable to the
accused the same is not EPF.
• Makes an act punishable as a crime
when such act was not an offense when
committed.
• While not creating new offenses,
aggravates the seriousness of a crime.
• Prescribes greater punishment for a
crime already committed.
• Alters the rules of evidence so as to
make it substantially easier to convict a
defendant
• Alters, in relation to the offense or its
consequences, the situation of a person
to his disadvantage.
• Assumes to regulate civil rights and
remedies only but in effect imposes a
 penalty or deprivation of a right which 5. Should commit any of the crimes
when done was lawful. against national security and the law of
• Deprives the accused of some lawful nations.
protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal or a PROSPECTIVE – Laws have only prospective
proclamation of amnesty. application unless they are favorable to the
offender, who is not a habitual delinquent.
BILL OF ATTAINDER (BOA) – Is a legislative act
which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. It “Lex prospicit, non respicit” the law looks
offends against the due process clause and has forward not backward.
EPF features.
a person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, is within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the
CHARACTERISTICE OF CRIMINAL LAW crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
GENERALITY – Penal Laws are binding on all robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found
persons who reside or sojourn in the Philippines guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
whether citizens or not. THREE THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 14. Penal laws and those of public CLASSICAL THEORY, POSITIVIST THEORY AND
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all MIXED OR ECCLECTRIC THEORY.
those who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
CLASSICAL POSITIVIST
TERRITORIAL – The law is applicable to all rimes
BASIS OF CRM HUMAN FREE WILL, MAN’S THOUGHTS
committed within the limits of Philippine LIABILITY MAN’S ACTION ARE AND ACTIONS ARE
territory. VOLUNTARY INFLUENCED BY HIS
BECAUSE A MAN UPBRINGING, SOCIAL
Article 2. Except as provided in the treaties and KNOWS WHAT IS ENVIRONMENT AND
laws of preferential application, the provisions RIGHT AND ASSOCIATIONS
of his code shall be enforced not only within the WRONG.
PURPOSE OF THE RETRIBUTION REFORMATION
Philippine Archipelago, including its
PENALTY “AN EYE FOR AN SINCE THE OFFENDER
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime EYE; A TOOTH FOR A IS NOT INHERENTLY
zone, but lso outside of its jurisdiction, against TOOTH” THE EVIL BUT ONLY MADE
those who: OFFENDER SHOULD EVIL BECAUSE OF HIS
BE METED THE ENIRONMENT, THE
1. Should commit an offense while on a PROPER PENALTY PENALTY SHOULD BE
Philippine ship or airship. CORRECTIVE TO
RESTORE HIM TO HIS
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin of GOOD NATURE.
currency note of the Philippines. DETERMINATION OF PENALTY IS PENALTY SHOULD BE
3. Should be liable acts connected with the PENALTY MECHANICALLY SUITED TO THE
introduction into these islands of the DETERMINED IN INDIVIDUAL
DIRECT OFFENDER PRECISELY
obligations and securities mentioned in PORPORTION TO BECAISE THE
the preceding number; THE CRIME PURPOSE IS TO
4. While being a public officers or COMMITTED REFORM HIM.
employees, should commit an offense in EMPHASIS OF THE TO THE OFFENSE TO THE OFFENDER
LAW
the exercise of their functions; or

ECLECTIC – Combines the good feature of both
the classical and positivist theories. The Classical
theory is applied to grievous and heinous crimes,
whereas, the positivist is made to apply on
economic and social crimes.
How penal laws are to be construed.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. - This
Code shall take effect on the first day of January
nineteen hundred and thirty-two
In the case of U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321,
323, the
Supreme Court traced the history of the old
Penal Code, as follows:
"The royal order dated December 17, 1886,
directed the execution of the royal decree of
September 4, 1884, wherein it was ordered that
the Penal Code in force in the Peninsula, as
amended in accordance with the
recommendations of the code committee, be
published and applied in the Philippine Islands
(This law) having been published in the Official
Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887,
became effective four months thereafter."
The Revised Penal Code, as enacted by the
Philippine Legislature, was approved on
December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1,
1932. Felonies and misdemeanors, committed
prior to January 1, 1932, were punished in
accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the
time of their commission, as directed by Art. 366
of the Revised Penal Code.
FELONIES
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, defined.
Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by
the Revised Penal Code.
OMISSION - is inaction, the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound to do. There
must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
INTENTIONAL - the act or omission of the
offender is malicious. In the language of Art. 3,
the act is performed with deliberate intent (with
malice). The offender, in performing the act or in
incurring the omission, has the intention to
cause an injury to another.
CULPABLE - the act or omission of the offender
is not malicious. The injury caused by the
offender to another person is "unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice."
MISTAKE OF FACT – Misapprehension of the fact
on the part f the person who caused injury to
another. He is not liable because he did not act
with criminal intent.
US VS Ah Chong – 15 Phil. 488
Facts:
The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers'
quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same
place as a house boy or muchacho "Officers'
quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40
meters from the nearest building.
No one slept in the house except the two
servants who jointly occupied a small room
toward the rear of the building, the door of
which opened upon a narrow porch running
along the side of the building. This porch was
covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire
length and height. The door of the room was not
furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the
occupants, as a measure of security, had
attached a small hook or catch on the inside of
the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this
somewhat insecure means of fastening the door
by placing against it a chair
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00
pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by
some trying to force open the door of the room
He called out twice, “Who is there?"
He heard no answer and was convinced by the
noise at the door that it was being pushed open
by someone bent upon forcing his way into the
room. The defendant warned the intruder "If you
enter the room, I will kill you."
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept
under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly
at the intruder (when he entered the room) who
turned out to be his roommate Pascual. Pascual
ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his
employers who slept in the next house and ran
back to his room to secure bandages to bind up
Pascual's wounds
Pascual died from the effects of the wound the
following day
The roommates appear to have been in friendly
and amicable terms prior to the incident and had
an understanding that when either returned at
night, he should knock that the door and
acquaint his companion with his identity. The
defendant alleges that he kept the knife under
his pillow as personal protection because of
repeated robberies in Fort McKinley
Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate,
but said that he did it under the impression that
Pascual was "a lardon (thief)" because he forced
open the door of their sleeping room, despite
the defendant's warnings
Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of
simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating)
circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1-
day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty
prescribed by law
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendant can be held
criminally responsible
Holding:
No.
RULING
By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the
defendant did an act for which he would be
exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as
he supposed them to be (i.e. if Pascual was
actually a thief, he will not be criminally
liable/responsible because it would be self-
defense), but would constitute the crime of
homicide or assassination if the actor had known
the true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it
was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of
homicide/assassination)
The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith
"The act itself does not make man guilty unless
his intention were so"
The essence of the offense is the wrongful
intent, without which it cannot exist
"The guilt of the accused must depend on the
circumstances as they appear to him."
If one has reasonable cause to believe the
existence of facts which will justify a killing, if
without fault or carelessness he does believe
them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide
The defendant was doing no more than exercise
his legitimate right of self-defense He cannot be
said to have been guilty of negligence or
recklessness or even carelessness in falling into
his mistake as to the facts RTC's decision is
reversed. The defendant is acquitted.
People vs Bayambao.
FACTS
Pambaya Bayambao was charged with the crime
of murder, was found guilty thereof by the Court
of First Instance of Lanao and sentenced to
twenty years cadena temporal, the accessories
of law, costs and to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P1,000.
He does not deny having caused the deceased's
death. He alleges, however, that he did it by
mistake, believing the deceased malefactor who
attacked him in the dark
P: While my wife was cooking, she called out to
me saying, 'Pambaya, Pambaya, someone has
thrown a stone at the house.' So I took my
revolver and went down. Having gone under the
house, I looked around, but did not see anybody;
however, I did not go far because I was alone.
Then, while I was near the staircase, about to
ascend, I heard a noise and saw a black figure
that rushed at me, with hands lifted up as if to
strike me, and becoming frightened, I fired at it.
ISSUE:
WON the offense made by the defendant which
was under uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury is a crime.
HELD:
No. If an offense is acted from the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of an injury, at least in same
gravity, in the belief that the deceased was a
malefactor who attacked him with a dagger in
hand and for the reason he was guilty of no
crime and is exempt from criminal liability.
Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was
not due to negligence or bad faith, and this
rebuts the presumption of malicious, intent
accompanying the act of killing. In a case, this
court acquitted the accused (U.S. vs. Ah Chong,
15 Phil., 488), and we deem the doctrine laid
down in that case applicable to this one.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the
appellant acquitted, with costs de officio, and
the other pronouncements in his favor. So,
ordered.
US v Penalosa
Article 475 of the prevailing Penal Code
provides as follows:
Any minor who shall contract marriage without
the consent of his or her parents or of the
persons who for such purpose stand in their
stead shall be punished with prision
correccional in its minimum and medium
degrees.
FACTS:
The accused were convicted in the lower court
for the violation of this article, it is appearing
from the evidence adduced that the accused,
Marcosa Peñalosa, was not 21 years of age on
the 3rd day of May, 1901, when she married the
codefendant, and that she contracted the
marriage without the consent of her father.
ISSUE:
WON the defendant is guilty of violation of
Article 475
HELD:
The defendant has stated that she believed that
she was born in 1879; that so her parents had
given her to understand ever since her tenderest
age; that she had not asked them concerning her
age because her father had given her to so
understand since her childhood. Her father was
present in the court room as the complaining
witness. If his daughter was deviating from the
truth it would have been an easy matter for him
to have testified denying the truth of what she
had stated. It is evident that he was interested in
the conviction of his daughter, and the fact that
the complaining witness did not contradict her
obliges us to accept as true the statements of the
witness. Being true, they disclose that she acted
under a mistake of fact; that there was no
intention on her part to commit the crime
provided for and punished the article 475.
As for the husband, it has been proved that two
days before the marriage was celebrated, he
received a letter from the woman in which she
said that she was 21 years of age. This letter the
defendant showed to the clergyman who
married them. The woman when the marriage
ceremony was performed took an oath before
the clergyman, in the presence of her husband,
that she was 21 years of age. The defendant
testifies that he had no suspicion that the
woman was a minor. This statement has not
been contradicted and we consider that it
suffices to demonstrate that the defendant
acted under a mistake of fact, and in conformity
with the principle laid down in this opinion he
has not been guilty of a violation of article 475 in
connection with article 13, No. 3, nor in any
other manner.
The conviction of the defendants in accordance
with article 568, together with article 29 of
General Orders, No. 58, has not been prayed for,
and even if it had been, we do not consider the
evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction in
accordance with this article. Her husband has
the right to accept the sworn statement of the
woman. The only person whom she could ask for
information was her father, and he had told her
age repeatedly.
For the reasons above set forth the sentence of
the lower court is reversed with reference to
both defendants, acquitting them freely with
costs of suit de oficio.
US V Apego
FACTS:
Upon the arrival of Maria Apego and her
husband, Pio Bautista, at the stairs of their
house, and as Genoveva Apego did not reply to
the call made to her from the outside by her
sister Maria, the said spouses went to the upper
floor of the house; Bautista led the way and, in
order to enter, opened the outside door, a
sliding door, and as there was no light inside
stumbled against Genoveva Apego, who was
sleeping near the said door, and touched her left
arm; thereupon, Genoveva awoke and believing,
as she testified, that somebody was trying to
abuse her, seized a pocketknife, asking at the
same time who was beside her, and as she did
not receive a reply immediately, she got up and
struck the person before her a blow with the said
knife;
In the meanwhile Maria Apego had separated
from her husband to light a match and then a
kerosene lamp there was in the house and was
not aware of the assault made upon her husband
by her sister Genoveva in front of Bautista, who
had already been wounded and was in an
attitude indicating that he was about to fall to
the floor; thereupon Genoveva went down out
of the house, calling for help, and ran to the
house of an aunt of hers where she was arrested
by the policeman, Manuel Peinado, to whom she
then and there delivered the pocketknife with
which she had assaulted her brother-in-law.

ISSUE:
WON the defendant is criminally liable.
HELD:
Under this hypothesis, she understood that
there was a positive unlawful aggression from
which she had to defend herself with the said
pocketknife, and it is also undeniable that there
was no previous provocation on her part; but it
is unquestionable that, in making use of this
deadly weapon, even in the defense of her
person and rights, by decidedly wounding him
who had touched her or caught her by the arm,
the defendant exceeded her right of defense,
since there was no real need of wounding with
the said weapon him who had merely caught by
her arm,
The party who she believed was making an
attempt against her honor, because he had
caught her by the arm, performed no other act
of aggression such as might indicate a decided
purpose to commit an attempt against her honor
than merely to catch her by the arm.
Once awake and provided with an effective
weapon for her defense, there was no just nor
reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in
the center of the body, where the principal vital
organs are seated, of the man who had not
performed any act which might be considered as
an actual attempt against her honor.
For the foregoing reasons it is our opinion that,
the defendant, Genoveva Apego, should be, as
she is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of two
years of prision correccional, to the accessories
of article 61, to pay an indemnity of five hundred
pesos to the heirs of the deceased, and, in case
of insolvency, to subsidiary imprisonment which
shall not exceed one-third of the principal
penalty, and to the payment of the costs of both
instances. In computing the time of the
sentence, credit shall be allowed for one-half of
the time of imprisonment suffered by the
defendant while awaiting trial. So ordered.
People V Gana (ZER MIN SIM)
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD
People V Oanis (Jefferson)
FACTS:
Serapio Tecson accused Oanis and Galanta with
crime of murder, chief of police Cabanatuan and
Corporal of the Philippine Constabulary found
guilty by the lower court of homicide through
reckless imprudence and were sentenced each
to an indeterminate penalty of from one year
and six months to two years and two months.
Defendants appealed separately.
In the afternoon of December 24, 1938. Captain
Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial
Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received
from Major Guido a telegram of the following
tenor: "Information received escaped convict
Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in
Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain
Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant
and asked that he be given four men. Defendant
corporal Alberto Galanta, and privates
Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D.
Fernandez, upon order of their sergeant,
reported at the office of the Provincial Inspector
where they were shown a copy of the above-
quoted telegram and a newspaper clipping
containing a picture of Balagtas. They were
instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if
overpowered, to follow the instruction
contained in the telegram. The same instruction
was given to the chief of police Oanis who was
likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. When
the chief of police was asked whether he knew
one Irene, a bailarina, he answered that he knew
one of loose morals of the same name. Upon
request of the Provincial Inspector, the chief of
police tried to locate some of his men to guide
the constabulary soldiers in ascertaining
Balagtas' whereabouts, and failing to see anyone
of them he volunteered to go with the party. The
Provincial Inspector divided the party into two
groups with defendants Oanis and Galanta, and
private Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street
leading to the house where Irene was
supposedly living. When this group arrived at
Irene's house, Oanis approached one Brigida
Mallare, who was then stripping banana stalks,
and asked her where Irene's room was. Brigida
indicated the place and upon further inquiry also
said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.
Brigida trembling, immediately returned to her
own room which was very near that occupied by
Irene and her paramour. Defendants Oanis and
Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the
door where they were, simultaneously or
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45
caliber revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots,
Irene saw her paramour already wounded, and
looking at the door where the shots came, she
saw the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by
the entire scene. Irene fainted; it turned out later
that the person shot and killed was not the
notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a
peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio
Tecson, Irene's paramour. The Provincial
Inspector, informed of the killing, repaired to the
scene and when he asked as to who killed the
deceased. Galanta, referring to himself and to
Oanis, answered: "We two, sir." The corpse was
thereafter brought to the provincial hospital and
upon autopsy by Dr. Ricardo de Castro, multiple
gunshot which caused his death.
These are the facts found by the trial court and
fully supported by the evidence, particularly by
the testimony of Irene Requinea. Appellants
gave a different version of the tragedy.
According to Appellant Galanta, when he and
chief of police Oanis arrived at the house, the
latter asked Brigida where Irene's room was.
Brigida indicated the place, and upon further
inquiry as to the whereabouts of Anselmo
Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the
same room. Oanis went to the room thus
indicated and upon opening the curtain covering
the door, he said: "If you are Balagtas, stand up."
Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke
up and as the former was about to sit up in bed.
Oanis fired at him. Wounded, Tecson leaned
towards the door, and Oanis receded and
shouted: "That is Balagtas." Galanta then fired at
Tecson.
On the other hand, Oanis testified that after he
had opened the curtain covering the door and
after having said, "if you are Balagtas stand up."
Galanta at once fired at Tecson, the supposed
Balagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed,
and continued firing until he had exhausted his
bullets: that it was only thereafter that he, Oanis,
entered the door and upon seeing the supposed
Balagtas, who was then apparently watching and
picking up something from the floor, he fired at
him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Oanis and Galanta incur no
liability due to innocent mistake of fact in
performance of their official duties.
HELD:
No, Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to
the case at bar. “ignorance facti excusat” applies
only when the mistake is committed without
fault. the fact that the supposedly suspect was
sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked
whether it is the real Balagtas. The crime
committed by the appellants is not merely
criminal negligence, the killing being intentional to determine the morality of human
not accidental. acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the
imbecile or the insane, and the infant
People vs. Monasalapa
under nine years of age as, well as the
minor over nine but less than fifteen
years old and acting without
FACTS: discernment, have no criminal liability,
HELD: because they act without intelligence.
3. INTENT - Intent to commit the act with
malice, being purely a mental process, is
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – While acting in self- presumed and the presumption arises
defense but hit a third person is justified if the from the proof of the commission of an
elements of self-defense are present. unlawful act
All the three requisites of voluntariness
in intentional felony must be present,
because "a voluntary act is a free,
CHARACTERISTICS OF A FELONY
intelligent, and intentional act." (U.S.
1. There must be an act or omission. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488, 495).
2. Act or omission must be punishable by
RPC “Nullucrimen nullapoena, sine lege”
CULPABLE FELONIES - The act or omission of the
there is no crime if there is no law
offender is not malicious. The injury caused by
punishing it.
the offender to another person is "unintentional,
3. Act is performed or omission is incurred
it being simply the incident of another act
by means of dolo (malice) or culpa
performed without malice."
(fault).
REQUISITES OF CULPABLE FELONIES
REQUISITES OF DOLO/ INTENTIONAL FELONIES
1. FREEDOM – Voluntariness on the part of
1. FREEDOM – Voluntariness on the part of
the person to commit the act or
the person to commit the act or
omission.
omission.
a. When a person acts without
a. When a person acts without
freedom, he is no longer a
freedom, he is no longer a
human but being a tool, his
human but being a tool, his
liability is as much as that of the
liability is as much as that of the
knife that wounds, or of the
knife that wounds, or of the
torch that sets fire, or of the key
torch that sets fire, or of the key
that opens a door, or of the
that opens a door, or of the
ladder that is placed against the
ladder that is placed against the
wall of a house in committing
wall of a house in committing
robbery. (Lacks freedom –
robbery. (Lacks freedom –
offender is free from liability)
offender is free from liability)
2. INTELLIGENCE – The capacity to know
2. INTELLIGENCE – The capacity to know
and understand the consequence of
and understand the consequence of
one’s act. Without this power, necessary
one’s act. Without this power, necessary
to determine the morality of human
 acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the
imbecile or the insane, and the infant
under nine years of age as, well as the
minor over nine but less than fifteen
years old and acting without
discernment, have no criminal liability,
because they act without intelligence.
3. NEGLIGENCE – It indicates a deficiency
of perception, failure to pay proper
attention and to use diligence in
foreseeing the injury and damage to be
caused.
4. IMPRUDENCE – It indicates a deficiency
of action, failure to take the necessary
precaution to avoid injury to person or
damage to property
CRIMINAL LIABILITY - Article 4. Criminal liability.
- Criminal liability shall be incurred:
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 an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
PRAETER INTENTIONEM - The injurious result is
greater than that intended.
Example: People vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524, where
the accused, without intent to kill, struck the
victim with his fist on the back part of the head
from behind, causing the victim to fall down with
his head hitting the asphalt pavement and
resulting in the fracture of his head, it was held
that the accused was liable for the death of the
victim, although he had no intent to kill said
victim.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES – Committed by any person
performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property where it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffective means.
Requisites of impossible crime:
1. That the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed
is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not
constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
People vs. Guillen
(85 Phil. 307)
FACTS:
Guillen, testifying in his own behalf, stated that
he performed the act voluntarily; that his
purpose was to kill the President, but that it did
not make any difference to him if there were
some people around the President when he
hurled that bomb, because the killing of those
who surrounded the President was tantamount
to killing the President, in view of the fact that
those persons, being loyal to the President, were
identified with the latter. In other words,
although it was not his main intention to kill the
persons surrounding the President, he felt no
compunction in killing them also in order to
attain his main purpose of killing the President.
HELD:
The facts do not support the contention of
counsel for appellant that the latter is guilty only
of homicide through reckless imprudence in
regard to the death of Simeon Varela and of less
serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo Eva,
Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang.
In throwing the hand grenade at the President
with the intention of killing him, the appellant
acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all
the consequences of his wrongful act; for in that sentence the defendant appealed to this
accordance with Art. 4 of the Revised Penal court.
Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
In this court the appellant alleges that the
cuommitting a felony (delito) although the
evidence adduced during the trial of the cause
wrongful act done be different from that which
was not sufficient to show that he was guilty of
he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury
the crime charged in the complaint.
caused to another should be unintentional, it
being simply the incident of another act The record shows that sometime in the month of
performed without malice. November, 1914, an order of arrest was issued
for the defendant and placed in the hands of the
(People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939) In the words of
chief of police of the municipality of Gerona. On
Viada, "in order that an act may be qualified as
or about the 15th of November, the chief of
imprudence it is necessary that neither malice
police, accompanied by another policeman,
nor intention to cause injury should intervene;
went to the house where the defendant was
where such intention exists, the act should be
staying for the purpose of making the arrest.
qualified by the felony it has produced even
Upon arrival at the house, inquiry was made of
though it may not have been the intention of the
some of the occupants whether or not the
actor to cause an evil of such gravity as that
defendant was there. Upon being informed that
produced." (Viada's comment on the Penal
he was in the house, the policeman who
Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed., p. 7) And, as was held by
accompanied the chief of police entered the
this court, deliberate intent to do an unlawful act
house without permission and attempted to
is essentially inconsistent with the idea of
arrest the defendant without explaining to him
reckless imprudence. (People vs. Nanquil, 43
the cause or nature of his presence there. The
Phil. 232)
defendant, according to the declaration of the
chief of police, resisted the arrest, calling to his
neighbors for assistance, using the following
US v Bautista
language: "Come here; there are some bandits
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, here and they are abusing me." Many of his
vs. neighbors, hearing his cry, according to the
MANUEL BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant testimony of the chief of police, immediately
came to his assistance and surrounded his
FACTS:
house.
This defendant was charged with the crime of
The policeman, who accompanied the chief, in
assault upon agents of the authorities and
his declaration said that when he attempted to
insulting them. Upon said complaint the
arrest the defendant, the defendant said to him:
defendant was arrested, arraigned, tried, found
"Why do you enter my house, you shameless
guilty, and sentenced by the Honorable Vicente
brigands?" and called to one Basilio, saying:
Nepomuceno to be imprisoned for a period of
four years two months and one day of prision There are some bandits here!"
correccional, with the accessory penalties of
article 61 of the Penal Code, to pay a fine of The policeman further testified that he then
P300, and in case of insolvency to suffer informed the defendant that he came there for
the purpose of arresting him, and the defendant
subsidiary imprisonment, in accordance with cc
provisions of the law, and to pay the costs. From asked him if he had an order of arrest, which
question was answered by the policeman in the
affirmative. Said policeman further testified that
immediately after he had notified the defendant
that he was a policeman and had an order of
arrest, the defendant submitted to the arrest
without further resistance or objection.

The record shows that the resistance made by

the defendant was done under the belief that
the persons who had entered his house were
tulisanes. The record also shows that by
declaration of the officers’ identity he peaceably
submitted and accompanied them.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the defendant should be

charged of assault?

HELD:

No, We do not believe that the law contemplates

the punishment of persons for resistance of the
authorities under circumstances such as those
which are disclosed in the present case. If the
defendant believed that those who had entered
his house were, in fact, tulisanes, he was entirely
justified in calling his neighbors and making an
attempt to expel them from his premises.

The record does not disclose sufficient facts to

justify the sentence imposed by the lower court.
The defendant is not guilty of the crime
described in the complaint.