G MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
H. COMPLEX CRIME AND SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
A. Preliminary matters
1. Differentiating Felonies, Offense, Misdemeanor and Crime
Felony: refers only to violations of the Revised Penal Code.
A crime punishable under a special law is not referred to as a felony. ―Crime‖ or ―offense‖
are the proper terms. (ASKED 3 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS)
Importance: There are certain provisions in the Revised Penal Code where the term ―felony‖ is used, which means that the provision is not extended to crimes under special laws.
Example:
Art. 160. Quasi-Recidivism: ―A person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the same, shall be punished under the maximum period of the penalty.‖
Note that the word ―felony‖ is used.
Offense: A crime punished under a special law is called a statutory offense.
Misdemeanor: A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an ordinance.
Crime: Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word ―crime‖ can be used.
1. Felonies: How Committed
Art. 3. Definitions (RPC) — 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.
Intentional Felony v. Culpable Felony
Intentional Culpable
Act is malicious. Not malicious.
With deliberate intent. Injury caused is unintentional, being just an incident of another act performed without malice.
Has intention to cause
an injury. Wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
2. How is Criminal Liability Incurred?
Art. 3 describes the manner of incurring criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code.
Intentional felony v. Culpable Felony. – It means performing or failing to do an act, when either is punished by law, by means of deceit (with dolo) or fault (with culpa)
It is important to note that if the criminal liability arises from an omission, such as misprision of treason or abandonment of helpless persons, there must be a law requiring the performance of such act.
In Par. 1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word
―felony,‖ that whoever commits a felony incurs criminal liability.
Par. 2 of Art. 4 makes a person liable even if the accomplishment of his crime is inherently impossible.
Art. 6 also provides for liability for the incomplete elements of a crime.
There are certain felonies committed by conspiring in or proposing the commission of certain acts, the principle behind this can be found in Art. 8.
Plural crimes on the other hand are discussed under Art. 48.
Requisites of Dolo or Malice
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do an act.
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing/omitting an act.
(3) He must have INTENT while doing/omitting the act.
(a) Intent which is a mental process presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
(b) If an act is proven to be unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima facie. (U.S.
v. Apostol)
(c) An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises from the commission of a felonious act.
(People v. Oanis) General v. Specific Intent
In some particular felonies, proof of specific intent is required. In certain crimes against property, there
23
must be intent to gain (Art. 293 – robbery, Art 308 – theft). Intent to kill is essential in attempted and frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to Art 249), as well as in murder. In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific intent of lewd designs must be proved.
Requisites of Culpa
(1) He must have FREEDOM while doing/omitting to do an act
(2) He must have INTELLIGENCE while doing the act/omitting to do an act
(3) He is IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT, or LACKS FORESIGHT or SKILL while doing the act/omitting to do an act.
3. Discussion of Article 5
Art. 5 RPC. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties.
1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law,
2) it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
3) In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
4) when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Art. 5 covers two situations:
a. Where the court cannot convict the accused because the act he committed is not punishable under the law, but the court deems it proper to repress such act.
The proper judgment is acquittal.
The judge must report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and the reasons therefore.
b. Where the court after trial finds the accused guilty, and the penalty prescribed for the crime appears too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of the crime,
The judge should impose the law (not suspend the execution of the sentence).
The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.
4. Wrongful Act Different from that Intended
When a person commits a felony with malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious act.
Art. 4. RPC. 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. xxx xxx xxx
Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused).
Requisites:
(1) An intentional felony has been committed.
(a) The felony committed should be one committed by means of dolo (with malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks of wrongful act done different from that which he intended.
(b) The act should not be punished by a special law because the offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do an injury to another.
(c) No felony is committed when:
i. the act or omission is not punishable by the RPC,
ii. the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 11.
(2) The wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
(a) Proximate Cause - That cause, which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have occurred.
Criminal liability exists from the concurrence of the mens rea and the actus reus.
Illustration:
Dave and JR are supposed to meet in Audrey‘s home but when JR arrived Dave was not home. JR received an SMS from Dave telling the former to get the house key from under the doormat. Dave lets himself in and saw an iPod on the table. JR took the iPod.
What is JR’s criminal liability? He is liable only for theft and not robbery because the intent to gain concurred only with the act of taking BUT NOT with the act of using the owner‘s keys to enter the house.
Note: Criminal liability for some felonies arises only upon a specific resulting harm:
(1) HOMICIDE AND ITS QUALIFIED FORMS requires DEATH of the victim to be consummated.
(2) ESTAFA: requires that the victim incur damage for criminal liability for the consummated felony to arise
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina (1957):
SC laid down the definition of proximate cause:
―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. And more
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
24
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.‖
GENERAL RULE: The offender is CRIMINALLY LIABLE for ALL the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the resulting harm.
Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended in the following cases:
(1) Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (Art. 49 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum period)
(a) At least two subjects
(b) A has intent to kill B, but kills C
(c) Under Art. 3, if A hits C, he should have no criminal liability. But because of Art. 4, his act is a felony.
(2) Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver offense in its maximum period)
(a) There is only one subject.
(b) The intended subject is a different subject, but the felony is still the same.
(3) Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than that intended (Art. 13 – mitigating circumstance)
(a) If A‘s act constitutes sufficient means to carry out the graver felony, he cannot claim praeter intentionem.
Proximate Cause v. Immediate Cause v. Remote Cause
Illustrations:
A, B, C, D, and E were driving their vehicles along Ortigas Ave. A‘s car was ahead, followed by those of B, C, D, and E.
When A‘s car reached the intersection of EDSA and Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red so A immediately stepped on his brakes, followed by B, C, and D.
However, E was using his cellphone and therefore was not aware that the traffic light had turned to red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit the car of
C, then C hit the car of B, then, finally, B hit the car of A.
In this case, the immediate cause of the damage to the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the proximate cause.
The proximate cause is the negligence of E (using his cellphone while driving) because it sets into motion the collision of all the cars.
US v. Valdez (1921):
The deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel.
Accused is in charge of the crew members engaged in the loading of cargo in the vessel.
Because the offended party was slow in his work, the accused shouted at him. The offended party replied that they would be better if he would not insult them.
The accused resented this, and rising in rage, he moved towards the victim, with a big knife in hand threatening to kill him.
The victim believing himself to be in immediate peril threw himself into the water. The victim died of drowning. The accused was prosecuted for homicide.
His contention that his liability should be only for grave threats since he did not even stab the victim, that the victim died of drowning, and this can be considered as a supervening cause.
Held:
The deceased, in throwing himself into the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation, and was in no sense legally responsible for his own death. As to him, it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable person under the same circumstance might have done the same.
This case illustrates that proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to actually touch the body of the offended party.
It is enough that the offender generated in the mind of the offended party an immediate sense of danger that made him place his life at risk. In this case, the accused must, therefore, be considered the author of the death of the victim.
Urbano v. IAC (1988):
A and B had a quarrel and A started to hack B with a bolo. B was wounded at the back.
Upon intervention, the two settled their differences.
A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also whatever loss of income B may have suffered.
B, on the other hand, signed a statement of his forgiveness towards A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A.
25
After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced that the wound was already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm.
A month later, B came home and was chilling. Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning.
The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that A is not liable. A, if at all, is only liable for the physical injuries inflicted upon B.
The Court took into account the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence was presented, that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. If, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted for around a month (22 days).
What brought about the tetanus to infect his body was his work in the farm using his bare hands.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. However, the act of B working in his farm where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, is an efficient supervening cause which relieves A of any liability for the death of B.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
(1) 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
(2) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
The following are not efficient intervening cause:
(1) The weak or diseased physical condition of the victim, as when one is suffering from tuberculosis or heart disease. (People v.
Illustre).
(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 on the accused. (People v. Almonte).
(3) Causes which are inherent in the victim, such (a) the victim not knowing to swim and (b) the
victim being addicted to tuba drinking. (People v. Buhay and People v. Valdez).
(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. v. Marasigan).
(5) Erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical treatment, as when the assault took place in anu outlaying barrio where proper modern surgical service was not available. (People v.
Moldes).
5. Omission
It is inaction, the failure to perform a positive duty which a person is bound to do.
There must be a law requiring the doing or performing of an act.
Punishable omissions in the RPC:
(1) Art. 116: Misprision of treason.
(2) Art. 137: Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
(3) Art. 208: Negligence and tolerance in prosecution of offenses.
(4) Art. 223: Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
(5) Art. 275: Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one‘s own victim.
(6) Art. 276: Abandoning a minor.
B. Classifications of Felonies
FELONIES ARE CLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
1. According to the manner of their commission 2. According to the stages of their execution
(ASKED 9 TIMES IN BAR EXAMS) 3. According to their gravity OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS:
4. As to count 5. As to nature
This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies and how are felonies defined?
TIP: What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies under Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
The question does not require the candidate to classify but also to define.
The purpose of classifying penalties is to bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment.
The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity.
◦ The stages (Art. 6) may not apply to all kinds of felonies.
◦ There are felonies which do not admit of division.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
26 1. According to the Manner of Their Commission
Under Art. 3, they are classified as:
a. Intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and
b. Culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
2. According to the Stages of Their Execution
Under Art. 6, they are classified as:
a. Attempted b. Frustrated c. Consummated
Note: The classification of stages of a felony in Article 6 are true only to crimes under the Revised Penal Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are punished under the Revised Penal Code do not admit of these stages.
Related to this, classification of felonies as to:
a. Formal Crimes: Crimes which are consummated in one instance.
Example: ILLEGAL EXACTION under Art. 213
Mere demanding of an amount different from what the law authorizes him to collect will already consummate a crime, whether the taxpayer pays the amount being demanded or not.
b. Material Felonies: crimes that have various stages of execution
c. Felonies by omission: Crimes which have no attempted stage.
d. Crimes which have NO FRUSTRATED STAGE:
the essence of the crime is the act itself.
Example: in rape, the slightest penetration already consummates the crime; the same is true for arson where the slightest burning already renders the crime complete.
Valenzuela vs. People (2007):
No crime of frustrated theft.
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to dispose of the goods.
Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings.
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the ―free disposition of the items stolen‖ is in any way
determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that under the
determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that under the