Revised Penal Code and San Beda Notes

Notebook: Criminal Law

Created: 8/12/2019 10:29 PM Updated: 9/8/2019 2:18 AM
Author: pam.miraflr@gmail.com
Tags: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5

    

    Revised Penal Code

and San Beda

CRIMINAL LAW - branch or division of law that defines the crime, treats its nature, and
punishes its violators
CRIME - any act that is committed in violation to the public laws
FELONY - an act or omission in violation to RPC either intentionally or negligently; a serious
crime
OFFENSE - any act that violates the law other than RPC
MISDEMEANOR - minor infraction of the law
Mala in se  - "evil in itself'; immoral acts
Mala prohibita  - "prohibited evil"; act that is prohibited by law but not that immoral
Common law crimes - unwritten laws, or laws that are made by the judges and was adapted
over the centuries

                                                   - this law is not applicable in the Philippines
                                                   - if an act is now prohibited by a statute, no matter how immoral or
socially inacceptable the act is, there will be no punishment
                                                   - court decisions are not sources of criminal law since they only
interpret and apply it

The sources of the Philippine Criminal Laws are:

1. Special Penal Laws passed by the

1. Philippine Commission;
2. Philippine Assembly;
3. National Assembly;
4. Philippine Legislature;
5. Congress of the Philippines; and
6. Batasang Pambansa
2. Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments
3. Penal Presidential Decrees passed during the Martial Law

POWER TO DEFINE AND PUNISH CRIMES

Police Power - is granted to the STATE in order to define the crimes, punish the violators of the law,
and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure
 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE:
CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

AS TO NATURE 

Substantive (having real meaning, governs the

Remedial
rights and obligations)
 Defines the crimes, treats their nature, and Regulates the process of prosecution and
penalizes the violator determines the conviction of the accused

AS TO APPLICATION

Prospective, unless favorable to the habitual

Retroactive, in favor of justice
accused

AS TO AUTHORITY

Congress Judiciary
LIMITATIONS OF THE LAWMAKING BODY TO ENACT PENAL LEGISLATION

The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution limits the following:

1. Ex post facto law/bill of attainder (Art. 3, Sec. 2)

1. makes an act against the crime when it was initially treated as an innocent deed
2. when the new law worsens or aggravates the crime
3. when the punishment is changed and inflicts a greater punishment to the accused
4. alters the legal rules of evidence
5. assumes to regulate civil rights
6. deprives the accused to their right to lawful protection
Bill of Attainder - punishes the accused without due process of law
2. The enacted criminal laws must be specific but of general application in which it must clearly
define the punishable acts and omissions

            "No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law".

THEORIES OF CRIMINAL LAW 

1. Classical or Juristic Theory  - the basis of criminal liability is human free will (bet. good and
evil) and the basis of penalty of retribution; places more stress on the act rather than the
person
2. Positivist or Realistic Theory  - the purpose of penalty is reformation; or the new agreement
presided by the judge in case there is something that both parties cannot expatiate; crime is
normal. it cannot be treated by the principles of law but rather through enforcement of
individual measures conducted by competent psychiatrists and social scientists
3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory  - combi of classical and positivist; our code is considered eclectic

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 

The Article III, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides for the following rights:

1. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition

2. No person shall answer any criminal offense without due process of law
3. All persons have the right to bail except those who are penalized with reclusion perpetua;
there should be no excessive bail
4. All accused persons shall be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and they have the right to
a speedy, impartial and public trial
5. No one should be a witness against himself
6. No one should be put under double jeopardy; unless there is a new found evidence
7. Poverty should not be a hindrance to access the courts and quasi-judicial decisions

STATUTORY RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the accused shall be
entitled with the following:

1. To be presumed innocent until proved guilty

2. To be fully informed of the nature of the accusation against him
3. To be present in the courts to defend himself; from arraignment to promulgation
4. To testify for himself (but subject to cross examination)
5. To be exempted from being a witness against himself
6. To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against his trial
7. To appeal in all cases

WAIVED RIGHTS VS. RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE WAIVED

 RIGHTS THAT CAN BE WAIVED RIGHTS THAT CANNOT BE WAIVED

Right to be accused to confrontation and Right of the accused to be informed of the nature
cross-examination and implications of the accusations indicted to him

Can involve personal justifications Affects the public interest

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CRIMINAL LAW

1. Generality - criminal law can only be enacted and judged to those who sojourn and reside in
the Philippines
2. Territorial - crimes committed within the Philippine territory; penal laws can only be enforced
within its territory
3. Prospective - a penal law cannot make an act punishable which was previously determined as
non-punishable when committed. 

                               - Article 366 of the RPC punish crimes based on the present laws during the
enactment of the crime  

The jurisdiction of courts is not affected by one's military character

Civil courts have simultaneous jurisdiction over murder cases committed by persons subject to
military law
RPC is not applicable once the military court takes over the case, the Articles of War will then
be applied
Military personnel who commit felonies shall be penalized by the RPC unless the case is
service-connected (

Exceptions to the general application of the Criminal Law:

1. Treaties or Treaty Stipulations - (e.g) Bases Agreement and Visiting Forces Agreement

                                                               - Philippine authorities can penalize US personnel under the
Philippine laws
                                                               - US authorities can punish US personnel under the US laws
only

2. Law of Preferential Application - RA No. 75 penalizes those who impair the visiting of the
diplomats

                                                                - exempts the diplomatic representatives such as
ambassadors and their servants. This rule doesn't apply to consuls
                                                                - Filipino citizens who serve the diplomats are exempted
                                                                - not applicable when the foreign country adversely affected
does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic representatives

3. Principles of Public International Law - sovereigns, other chiefs of state and ambassadors,
ministers, and charges d'affairs are exempted

                                                                           - all states are sovereign equals        

Exceptions to the territorial application of the Criminal Law:

1. Offense is committed while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should counterfeit money issued by the Gov of the Phils
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations
and securities
4. While being officer, should not commit an offense in the exercise of their functions

Exceptions to the prospective application of Criminal Law

1. When a new statute is more favorable to the accused, it can have a retroactive effect

       
         Exception to the exception: 
        1.     When the new statute is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes
of actions

2.     When the offender is a habitual criminal

EFFECTS OF REPEAL ON PENAL LAW

If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law shall be applied provided
that the offender is not a habitual delinquent or when the statute is made inapplicable to
pending actions
If the repeal makes the penalty heavier, the law in force at the time of the commission of the
offense will be applied
If the new law cancels the old punishment, the new law will be enacted, thus obliterating the
crime

When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases to be criminal.

When the new law and the old law penalize the same offense, the offender shall be penalized
according to the old law.

When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense under the old law, the accused cannot be
convicted under the new law.

A person who commits a crime after the repealing act was passed does not excuse him from being
convicted by the new law, provided that he can defend himself in court

A new law that omits anything contained in the old law dealing on the same subject, operates as a
repeal of anything not so included in the amendatory act
 
Self-repealing law

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAW

Penal laws are constructed in favor of the accused, and against the State. The penal law can only be
favored to the State if the law in ambiguous subject to interpretation.

In the construction and interpretation of the penal law, the Spanish text is controlling since it was
approved in Spanish text

Incorrect translations:

"sosteniendo combate" into "engaging in war"

"sufriendo privacion de libertad" into "imprisonment"
"nuevo delito" into "another crime"

Legal Maxims:

Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege - there is no crime when there is no law that punishes it
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus - an act unwillfuly done by me is not my act
In dubio, pre reo - when in doubt, go for the accused

REVISED PENAL CODE ACT NO 3815 AS AMENDED

RPC has two books:

1. Book 1 - consists of (a) basic principles affecting criminal liability and (b) provisions on
penalties including criminal and civil liability 
2. Book 2 - defines felonies with the corresponding penalties, classified and grouped under 14
titles

HISTORY OF THE RPC

Administrative Order no. 94 - committee that revised the Old Penal Code in consideration to
the special penal laws and rulings from the SC
                                                         - October 18, 1927
                                                         - Anacleto Diaz (chairman), Quintin Paredes, Guillermo Guevara,
Alex Reyes, Mariano de Joya

Old Penal Code - took effect from July 14, 1887 to December 31, 1931
Revised Penal Code - approved in December 8, 1930 and was enacted on January 1, 1932
Classical school - basis of RPC, but loosely based on positivist
Felonies, misdemeanors, and other offenses done before the RPC were convicted through
Code of Acts

ARTICLE 2 - APPLICATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS

1. Extraterritoriality - RPC is still applicable outside the Philippine territory

2. Exterritoriality - exempts minsters, ambassadors, and the like
3. Intraterritoriality - within Philippine territory

The following circumstances can still be penalized by the RPC even outside the Philippine territory:

1. Creating counterfeit money

2. Introducing the counterfeit money
3. Offense done while in a Philippine ship or airship

                a. The ship must be registered in the Philippines, regardless of the owner's citizenship
                b. The said Philippine vessel is found within the Philippines' high seas

4. Public officers who violate the exercise of their functions:

                a. Direct Bribery

                b. Indirect Bribery
                c. Qualified Bribery
                d. Failure to Render Accounts
                e. Failure to Render Accounts before leaving the country
                f. Illegal use of public funds and property
                g. Failure to make delivery of Public Funds
                h. Falsification
                i. Malversation of public funds
                j. Corruption
                k. Fraud against Public Treasury and Similar Offenses
                l. Possession of Prohibited Interest

5. Should commit crimes against national security such as:

                a. Treason;

                b. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason
                c. Espionage
                d. Inciting to War and giving motives of reprisals
                e. Violation of Neutrality
                f. Correspondence with hostile country
                g. Flight to enemy's country
                h. Piracy and mutiny in the high seas

Human Security Act of 2007 - anti terrorism

Note: A travelling merchant ship is an extension of its country's territory

  JURISDICTION OF FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSELS

French Rule English Rule

Crimes committed aboard a

The country or place where the
vessel that stays or docks
crime happened can litigate the
within a foreign country's
General Rule offenders (adapted in the
territory is NOT TRIABLE in the
Philippines)
courts of that country; 

When the said crime affects the When the crime affects the things
Exception peace and security of that within the vessel; and when the
country
 crime involves internal
management

If a merchant vessel that posses dangerous drugs is in transit and passes by Philippines, they will not
be held liable to court. But if the vessel personnel uses the drugs within the Philippine territory, they
will be held to court.

Warships are not subject to the laws of the foreign land where they can be found. Merchant vessels
are more subjected to territorial penal laws.

-------------------

FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

CHAPTER ONE
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 - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Deceit - dolo
            - when an act is performed with deliberate intent
Fault - culpa
         - when the wrongful act  results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill

External acts are only punishable since internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law.
  
Elements of Felonies :

1. act or omission

                - act is 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
               - omission means meant inaction, or the failure to perform a positive duty one is bound to. 

2. the act or omission is punishable by RPC

                - nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (there is no crime if there is no law punishing it)
               - the words "crime" and "offense" are only used for acts punishable by special statutes 
ACT VS OMISSION

Felony by performing an act Felony by omission

Omega took Alpha's pet with intent

A collection officer who voluntarily
to gain and without the consent of
fails to issue receipt is provided by law
Alpha. Omega constitutes to the
is guilty of illegal exaction.
crime of theft.

3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa.

CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES

Intentional  Culpable

dolo culpa

injury caused is with no deliberate

 has the intent to cause an injury
criminal intent

malicious not-malicious
 with criminal intent criminal intent is replaced by
imprudence and negligence
Requisites of dolo or malice: Presumption of Criminal Intent
RULE — MALICE OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO CAUSE AN INJURY OR WRONG PRESUPPOSES THE
EXERCISE OF  VOLUNTARINESS OR
FREEDOM AND THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE. SUCH CRIMINAL INTENT IS DISPUTABLY PRESUMED
FROM THE PROOF OF ACTS  OR
OMISSIONS WHICH ARE PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

The following must be present in order to be considered as an act with deliberate intent:
1. FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act
                When a person who was forced and was left with no choice is exempt from criminal liability
                A person who acts out of impulse of an uncontrollable fear is exempt from criminal liability.
2. INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act
                Intelligence determines the morality of human acts.
                An insane or imbecile is exempted from criminal liability
3. INTENT while doing the act or omitting the act

Criminal intent is presumed to be always present when a criminal act was performed, unless
proved otherwise.
One who acts without freedom necessarily has no intent to do an injury to another. One who
acts without intelligence has no such intent.
A person who acts with freedom and intelligence may not have intent.
Existence of intent is shown by the overt acts.

Criminal Intent is necessary because:

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, "the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his
intention were so."

Note that “deceit” in Art. 3 is not the proper translation of “dolo”. Dolus is equivalent to “malice”
which is the
intent to do an injury to another’s person, property, or rights.
IMPRUDENCE VS NEGLIGENCE

Imprudence Negligence

deficiency of action deficiency of perception

failure to take the necessary fails to pay proper attention in

precaution to avoid injury foreseeing the injury

lack of skill lack of foresight

Voluntary Voluntary
There are crimes which cannot be committed through imprudence or negligence: murder, treason,
robbery, malicious mischief

People v Ramirez
A hunter was charged for homicide through reckless imprudence for killing his companion whom he
thought was a deer.
He voluntarily discharged his gun but without malice.

U.S. vs Reodique
When there is prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act.

When you stumble, there is no lack of skill. So there is none at fault

Unresistable force is absent freedom. Therefore, he will now be liable.

WHY ACT OR OMISSION IN FELONIES MUST BE VOLUNTARY

1. RPC is based on Classical Theory in which the basis of criminal liability is human free will
 2. A man is a rational being, and one must justify that his case falls under Article 12 to prove that
his act is not voluntary
3. Dolo: performed with deliberate intent and voluntariness is necessary, Culpa: imprudence
consists voluntarily

Elements of voluntariness:

General Intent Specific Intent

Intention to do wrong Intention to control a definite act

Presumed to exist from the mere Existence of the intent not presumed
doing of a wrongful act since it is an ingredient to the crime

Accused proves the absence of intent Prosecutor proves the absence of intent

Requisites of dolo or malice: Presumption of Criminal Intent

MISTAKE OF FACT - a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another.

Ignorance of fact relieves the accused from criminal liability

Not criminally liable since he did not act with criminal intent

Elements of Mistake of Fact:

1. Justifying circumstance under Article 11 (2)

                Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
                            1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
                                         First. Unlawful aggression.
                                         Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
                                         Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
       
                             2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate,  natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in           
                     the same degrees and those consanguinity  within the fourth civil degree, provided that
the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding  circumstance are                               
         present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person
attacked,  that the one making defense had no part therein.
        
                            3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that
the first and second requisites  mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and           
                    that the person defending be not induced by  revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

                            4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided  that the following requisites are present;
                                        First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
                                        Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
                                        Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing
it.
                             
                            5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office.

                            6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose.

2. Absolutory cause such as in Art. 247 (2 or 3)

                    Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any
legally married person who  having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual                   
                     intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or  both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer                       
                 the  penalty of destierro.
                    If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.
                    
                    These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to
their daughters under  eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living           
         with their parents.
                    
                    Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
shall otherwise have consented to  the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the       
                 benefits of this article.

3. Involuntary Act

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

    1. That the act done would have been lawful

    2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
    3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

Requisites of Culpa

1. He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act;

2. He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the act;
3. He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act or omitting
to do the act.

Mala in se and Mala Prohibita

Intentional Good faith Rules on

Felonies can be a mitigating Principal,
  Revised Renders
defense, Intent is and accomplice,
Penal serious
Code Immoral unless an aggravating and
Mala in se Culpable effects to
in itself performed element circumstances accessory
Felonies the society
with culpa apply

Do not,
Prohibited Good faith
Special Municipal unless Only the
Mala for the cannot be Intent is Only for
Penal or provided by principal is
Prohibitum Ordinances welfare of used as a immaterial convenience
Laws the special liable
the public defense
law

Special laws and statutory enactment do not need criminal intent to be punished since it affects public welfare.
(mala prohibita)

Exceptions: 

1. When done with license

2. Immateriality of animus possidendi
3. Pending permit to possess firearm

Mala in se in special law: Plunder 

Mala prohibita in RPC - techinical malversation

If a man with a revolver enters a precinct, he is punishable under the election code. (No criminal intent)
If a man just passes by a polling place, he is not punishable under the election code. (No intent to perpetrate the
act)

Intent Motive

purpose to use a particular means to moving power which impels one to do an

effect such result action
 state of mind of the offender while
reason for doing the act
the crime is committed

Important Not important

Motive can be used in court if:

1. Identity of the accused is doubted

2. Evidence is circumstantial, motive is essential
3. Act brings out various crimes
4. Lack of motive can prove innocence

Motive is proved by testimonies

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal l i a b i l i t y shall be incurred: 

        1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that w h i c h he intended.

        2. By any p e r s o n performing an act w h i c h would be an offense against p e r s o n s or

property, were i t not for the inherent i m p o s s i b i l i t y of i t s accomplishment or on account
            of t h e employment of i n a d e q u a t e or ineffectual means.

Even though the law pr

One is not relieved from criminal liability for the natural consequences of one's illegal acts, merely
because one does not intend to
produce such consequences. (bolo fight but killed Omandam)

When a person has not committed a felony, he is not criminally

liable for the result which is not intended. 

"el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" 

(the who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).

The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are: 
(1) mistake in the identity of victim; 
(2) mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually
inflicts it on another; and 
(3) the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended.

In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony different from that which he
intended to commit, the following
requisites must be present:

    a. That an intentional felony has been committed; and

    b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felony committed by the offender. 

There is no felony if:

1. The act is not punishable by law

                If a person who attempts to suicide in turn kills a person, he will not be punishable for
homicide since there is no act prohibiting suicide

1. The act is covered by any of the  justifying circumstances in Art 11

Any person who creates in another's mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to
do something resulting in the latter's injuries, is liable for the resulting
injuries.

Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of felonious act:

1. blow was the efficient cause of death

2. blow accelerated death
 3. Blow was proximate cause of death 

Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred."
                            - the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:

a) Efficient Intervening Cause - there is an active force that intervened between the
felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

The following are not efficient intervening causes:

1. The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis
or heart disease.
(People vs. Illustre and People vs. Reyes, supra)
78

2. The nervousness or temperament of the victim, as when a person dies in consequence of an

internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor's orders, because of his nervous
condition due to the wound inflicted by the accused. (People vs. Almonte, 56 Phil. 54; See
also People vs. Quianson, 62 Phil. 162)

3. Causes which are inherent in the victim, such as (a) the victim not knowing how to swim, and (b)
the victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People vs. Buhay and U.S. vs. Valdez, supra; U.S. vs.
Bayutas, supra)

4. Neglect of the victim or third person, such as the refusal by the injured party of medical
attendance or surgical operation, or the failure of the doctor to give anti-tetanus injection to the
injured person. (U.S. vs. Marasigan and People vs. Red, supra)

5. Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in an outlying
barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1)

Those causes, not being efficient intervening causes, do not break the relation of cause

A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information

CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY COMMITTING AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (ART. 4, PAR. 2)

Art. 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.

‣ Requisites of an 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 RPC.

Is impossible crime, a crime?

‣ NO. The law states that the act “would be a crime” hence, it has not ripened into an actual
crime  because of the ineffectual means employed or due to its inherent impossibility. Objectively, no
crime has been  committed.
 
If there is no crime, why is there criminal liability?
‣ The purpose is to suppress lawlessness. Subjectively, the offender is a criminal although no crime
has  been committed. There is also no attempted and frustrated stage because there is no actual
crime.
‣ The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on
the  part of the
actor. Such person is a potential criminal.
‣ There is intent (subjective) but actually no crime is committed (objective), the law merely pins
criminal  liability to penalize the criminal intent of the offender.

ELEMENTS OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

1. THAT THE ACT PERFORMED WOULD BE A CONSUMMATED OFFENSE AGAINST PERSONS OR

PROPERTY
‣ NOTE — Impossible crimes presupposes that the crime which was supposed to have been
produced  was consummated.
‣ In committing an impossible crime, the offender intends to commit a felony against persons or a
felony  against property, and the act performed would have been an offense against persons or
property. But a felony  against persons or property should NOT have been actually committed.
‣ If the act performed would be an offense other than a felony against persons or property, there is
NO  impossible
crime

FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS  FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY

1. Robbery (Art. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303)

1. Parricide (Art. 246) 2. Brigandage (Art. 306, 307)
2. Murder (Art. 248) 3. Theft (Art. 308, 310, 311)
3. Homicide (Art. 249) 4. Usurpation (Art. 312, 313)
4. Infanticide (Art. 255) 5. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
5. Abortion (Art. 256, 256, 258, 259) 6. Swindling and other deceits (Art. 315, 316, 317,
6. Duel (Art. 260, 261) 318)
7. Physical Injuries (Art. 262, 263, 264, 265, 7. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
266) 8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
8. Rape (Art. 266-A) (Art. 320, 321,
322, 323, 324, 325, 326)
9. Malicious mischief (Art. 327, 328, 329, 330, 331)

2. THAT THE ACT WAS DONE WITH EVIL INTENT

‣ There must be criminal intent to do injury to another

‣ Example — Arya was looking for Lord Roose Bolton because she wanted to kill him to get
vengeance for  the death
of her brother Robb, whom Roose killed. She managed to sneak into Winterfell and chance upon
Roose.  However,
Ramsay beat her to killing Roose. Thereafter, she approached the lifeless corpse of Roose
and  repeatedly stabbed
it, to satisfy his grudge. Is this an impossible crime? No, Arya knew Roose was already dead when
she  stabbed the
lifeless body. There is no evil intent on her part because she knew she couldn’t cause injury to
Roose  anymore.
‣ The offender must know that of the impossibility of the crime
‣ For instance, in homicide, the offender has the intent to kill, if he knew that the victim is already
dead, he  would
not intend to kill the dead. Or if he knew that the vault was empty, he would not go to trouble of
breaking  into a
building with all the attendant risks to himself to steal nothing.

3. THAT ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT IS INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE, OR THAT THE MEANS EMPLOYED IS

EITHER INADEQUATE OR INEFFECTUAL

‣ In impossible crime, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against persons
or  property, either
because —
    a. The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment
            i. Legal Impossibility
                    ‣ Where the intended acts, even if completed would not amount to a crime. It applies to
those  circumstances
                     where:
                            1. The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law
                            2. There is intention to perform the physical act
                            3. There is a performance of the intended physical act
                            4. The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.
                  
                          ‣ Examples:
                        ‣ One night while Bran was sleeping in his chambers, he died from his injuries as a
result of falling from a tower in Winterfell. Thereafter, an assassin hired by the Lannisters sneaked   
                          in and stabbed him repeatedly. There is an impossible crime due to legal impossibility
as you cannot kill a dead person (actually these’s physical impossibility also). However, note               
              that the assassin did not know that Bran was already dead, if he knew, then there is no
impossible crime, as there was no intent to commit a felony.

                        ‣ Stealing property which turned out to belong to the thief is legally impossible as in
theft, the personal property must belong to another.
                
                ii. Physical/Factual Impossibility
                        ‣ This occurs when the extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
                    
                        ‣ Example — When Queen Daenerys Targaryen was in the City of Qarth, she heard that
her host, the  richest man if Qarth, Xaro Xhoan Daxos had a huge vault filled with vast                       
             treasures. One night, she sneaked into a vault but found that is was empty. This is an
impossible crime, due to physical impossibility.
                        
        b. The means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
                ‣ However, where the means employed was adequate, yet it did not achieve the result
expected, the crime  is committed in its frustrated stage.

                    ‣ Examples — ‣ Queen Cersei wanted to kill the King’s Hand, Lord Jon Arryn of the Vale.
One night, when they were  having dinner, she puts what she believes to be lethal poison in his           
             drink, however, it turns out that it was not  lethal anymore, as age has doused its lethality.
The poison is inadequate to kill Lord Arryn. However, if the  poison
                        was lethal, however, Lord Arryn somehow survived because Grand Maester Pycelle
was able to give him  an
                        antidote in time, there is frustrated. homicide/murder.

                    ‣ A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of the latter, A not knowing it was
empty. When he pressed the trigger, it did not fire. The means employed by A is ineffectual.

4. THAT THE ACT PERFORMED SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF ANOTHER PROVISION
OF THE RPC.

                    ‣ Example — Ser Bronn of the Blackwater saw that Lady Lollys Stokeworth had a
beautiful and expensive  diamond necklace and he wanted to rob it. One night in Flea Bottom, Bronn
                          chanced upon her and drew his sword  and told Lollys to hand over the necklace or
else he will kill her. However, during that time Lollys fortunately forgot  to wear it. Bronn is still           
                guilty of attempted robbery and NOT an impossible crime. This is because Bronn,
in  threatening Lolly’s life with his sword, constitute a crime (at least grave threats) punishable           
                   under the RPC.

                    ‣ NOTE — this requisite was NOT been strictly applied by the SC in Intod vs CA, where
several men  wanted to kill
                        someone and sprayed the latter’s house with bullets, thinking he was inside, however,
it was empty. The  court said
                    that it was an impossible crime, despite the fact that the shooting of the house was
arguably, a felony  itself.

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from
criminal liability:

    1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
    When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the  court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established       
 for persons thus afflicted,  which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
    
    2. A person under nine years of age.

    3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such  minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80   
 of this Code.
    When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of  this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of       
 his family who shall be charged  with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be
committed to the care of some institution or person  mentioned in said Art. 80.

    4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

    5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
    
    6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
    
    7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.