ART.

3
Specific criminal intent must be
alleged in the information filed against
the accused and must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt either by
DIRECT
evidence
or
by
CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence.
X and Y are fighting, X is a karate
master. X kickboxed the neck of Y, the
chest of Y and both legs of Y.
Y was rushed to the hospital and
survived, but he was hospitalized for a
period of 2 months or 60 days. And so
a case of frustrated homicide was filed
against X. X however contended he
has no intent to kill, because it was a
fight. He never intended to kill, he only
intended to injure.
-

Here intent to kill is a specific

criminal intent which must be
proven by the prosecution. If
the prosecution failed to prove
specific criminal intent on the
part of X when he kickboxed the
neck, chest and legs of Y, then
the court can only convict X of
Serious
Physical
Injuries.
Because said criminal intent
was
not
proven
by
the
prosection.

What if in the same problem. When X

kickboxed, the neck, chest and legs of
Y. Y was put to the hospitalized, but 2
days after, Y died because of the
injuries sustained. And so, a case of
homicide was filed against X.
-

Here, the prosecution need not

prove the intent to kill, because
the Victim Y died, intent to kill
becomes a GENERAL CRIMINAL
INTENT which is presumed by
law.
It is the accused X, who has the
burden of evidence to prove
that when he inflicted physical

injuries to Y, there was no intent

to kill.
The best evidence of intent to
kill is when the victim died.

You dont need proof of motive if the

crime committed is an act malum
prohibitum. As a general rule motive is
immaterial to prove the criminal
liability of the offender. There are
however instances when motive is
material to determine the criminal
liability of the offender. They are
1. When the acts of the offender
would result to variant crimes
2. When the identity of the
offender is doubtful
3. When the prosecution only has
circumstantial
evidence
to
prove the commission of the
crime.
In these 3 instances, proof of motive
becomes material to determine the
criminal liability of the offender.
The victim was found on a vacant lot.
He has 5 stab wounds. He was already
dead. With 5 fatal stab wounds. No
one saw who stabbed the victim. But
the mother said, X Y and Z fetched the
victim from their house at 10oclock in
the evening. A neighbor said, he saw X
Y and Z on board in the same jeepney
with the victim. Another neighbor
appeared and made a statement, he
said, he saw X Y and Z having a
heated argument with the victim
about 5 meters away from where the
victim was found dead.
- Here motive is material to
determine the criminal liability
of the offender because since
no one has seen, there was no
eye witness to the commission
of the crime, proof is done
solely
by
circumstantial
evidence.
Who has motive to kill the victim?

Based
on
circumstantial
evidence, X Y and Z had the
motive to kill the victim.

The victim was found lying at the

staircase of the house, when the wife
arrived, the victim told the wife that it
was PEDRO who killed me and
thereafter, he died. There were 3
pedros in the area. Who is the pedro
that should be charged? A witness
said, he saw PEDRO-A arguing with the
victim in front the house and he saw
PEDRO-A entered the house of the
victim. Therefore, motive is material to
determine the criminal liability of the
offender because there is doubt to the
identity of the offender.
MISTAKE OF FACT.
It was around 12oclock at midnight.
The security guard was already very
sleepy when he heard a noise. He saw
2 persons jumped inside the premises
he is guarding. He called on these 2
persons, but these 2 persons did not
mind the security guard. These 2
persons were armed with guns, long
firearms. And so the he followed them,
opened the warehouse and the lights.
Since the door was open, there was a
guy coming from a room, and the
security guard saw a shadow of a man
pointing a gun at him. And so the
security guard fired at the said man,
and the man died. It turned out that
the man was not among those persons
who jumped but rather, he was a
worker in the said warehouse who
slept there without permission.
He was prosecuted. Security guard
said he acted under mistake of fact.
Was there mistake of fact on the part
of the offender?
1. That the act would have been
lawful and justifiable had the facts

been as the accused believed them

to be
- Had the facts been that the
man who jumped was pointing a
gun at him. Then the security
guard is justified to shoot the
said person.
2. The intention of the security guard
was lawful.
3. The mistake was without fault and
negligence.
- The said person didnt ask for
permission to sleep there. As
the security guard believed,
there was no person inside.
There
was
no
fault
and
negligence in ascertaining the
true facts of the case.
Therefore, the security guard must be
acquitted because he acted under
Mistake of Fact.
ART.4
A and B, they are bf and gf. The bf
promised to _________marry B at night.
But B waited in vain, A did not arrive.
Instead she only received a text
message saying that A would not be
able to come, A could not marry B
because A is already a married man
with 5 children. So B became so sad.
Frustrated, she began crying terribly
and went out of the house, walked on
the streets, not on her own rightful
self. She fell on a canal and she died.
Is A the bf, then author of the death of
the said victim? In the first place, the
bf, when he divulged that he is a
married man and could not marry the
girl is NOT committing a felonious act.
Since in the first place he is not
committing a felonious act, therefore,
he cannot be liable for any resulting
felony. As such, the said bf cannot be
liable for the death of the said girl.
Same problem, but with added facts.
So this time, when the girl learned

that the man could not marry her. She

went on the top most portion of the
building, decided to commit suicide to
take her own life. She jumped.
However, as she was falling, she fell
on a child. The girl was saved but the
child was pinned down and died.
Is A the bf liable for the death of the
child? How about the woman, is the
woman liable for the death of the
child?
-

Again, the man is not liable. He

was
not
performing
any
felonious act, therefore he is not
liable for any resulting felony.

How about the said woman?

When the said woman was
committing suicide, she was not
committing
a
felonious
act,
because suicide is not a felony
either the RPC or any special penal
law in PH jurisidiction. It is not a
felonious act.
However, in performing said lawful
act, she did not do so with due
care. Since she did not do so with
due care. Since she did not do so
with due care, she becomes liable
for a CULPABLE FELONY.
So here there is a simple
negligence on the part of the said
woman, therefore, the said woman
may be held liable for simple
negligence resulting to homicide
for the death of the said child.
Although she was performing a
lawful act, she did not do so with
due care, she caused an injury by
an accident on the part of the
offended party. Hence she can be
liable
for
simple
negligence
resulting to homicide.
Art. 4(first paragraph)

ABBERATIO ICTUS
X molested the daughter of Y. Y
wanted to kill X, to take a revenge.
Y looked for X, Y saw X on board a
tricycle. And so Y went near X and
fired a shot at X. but because of
lack of precision, the bullet landed
on the driver of the tricycle and not
on X. the driver died. What crime
or crimes have been committed by
Y?
In so far as X, the intended victim
is concerned, the crime committed
is attempted murder. There was
intent to kill X, however X was not
injured because of poor aim.
The actual victim is the driver,
since the driver died, the intent to
kill becomes a general criminal
intent. Therefore in so far as the
driver is concerned, the crime
committed is MURDER.
These are 2 grave felonies arising from
a single act of shooting. Therefore,
art.48 comes in, the crime committed
is MURDER with ATTEMPTED MURDER.
***(murder sabi ni maam, but check
page 10 ng senior notes. Almost same
facts, pero homicide lang dun sa
actual victim and not murder)***
X wanted to kill Y, so he waited in a
corner behind an unlighted electric
post, he knew that every day, Y would
pass by the said place. when a man
arrived, resembling Y, X immediately
appeared and stabbed the man. It
turned out that the man was not Y. it
turned out to be his own father.
So X can be prosecuted for the crime
of parricide, the crime he actually
committed.

But the crime he intended to commit

is murder, because in waiting behind
an unlighted electric post, there was
treachery. Therefore the crime he
intended to commit is murder.
Would art. 49 apply? Would the lesser
penalty be imposed?
-

Art.49 would not apply because

both murder and parricide have
the same penalties Reclusion
perpetua.
Therefore, even if there is
variance in the title of the
felonies, they have the same
penalties. Hence, Art.49 will not
apply. It will not mitigate the
criminal liability of the offender.

PRAETER INTENTIONEM
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
X The public officer filed his SALN, the
said SALN has been filed before the
appropriate government agency. It
turned out later that the administering
officer in the SALN is not a notary
public, but only a secretary of the said
notary public. The person who signed
the same is only the secretary and not
the person competent enough to
administer the said oath. X the public
officer knew this. Is X liable for an
impossible crime?
-

X is not liable for an impossible

crime

The first element requires that the act

done would have been an offense
against person or property
- Had it been accomplished, the
act done would have amounted
to perjury
- However perjury is not a crime
against person or property. It is
under title 4, crimes against
public interest.

Therefore the first element is

absent.

What then is the crime committed?

- The
crime
committed
is
falsification. Making an unlawful
statements in a narration of
facts.
Why not perjury?
- Because the solemnizing officer
is not duly authorized to receive
and administer, therefore it
cannot be perjury.
X lost his cellphone 2 days ago while
going to work. Now, while he was
working, he saw his officemate with a
new cellphone like his old phone. He
waited for his officemate to go to the
CR and when the officemate went to
the CR, X covered his face with a
handkerchief,
went
near
the
officemate, pointed a balisong and
told him this is a holdup, give me
your cellphone, I am going to stab you
if you dont give it to me. Afraid, the
officemate gave the cellphone. It
turned out that it was his cellphone
that he lost 2 days ago. Is X liable of
an impossible crime?
1st element the act done would have
amounted to a crime against person or
property. Had it been accomplished,
would it have been a crime against
property?
- NO, because the said thing
taken happens to be his own
property.
2nd element the act done was done
with evil intent
3rd element was it inherently
impossible to accomplish the crime?
Yes, because in case of robbery or
theft, it is necessary that the thing
must belong to another person. And
here, thing taken is his own property.
4th element the act does not fall
under any other provision of RPC.
Does the act fall under any provision

of the RPC? Yes, therefore it is not an

impossible crime.
What provision of the RPC? It
amounted to grave coercion. By
compelling someone to do something
against his will, whether right or wrong
by means of violence or intimidation.
Therefore, the offender is not liable of
an impossible crime, rather, he is
liable for grave coercion.
Art. 5 (second paragraph)

After trial on the merits, the judge has

found the accused guilty, but based on
the facts and circumstances, the
penalty prescribed by law for the
crime committed is too harsh. No
matter how harsh
the penalty
prescribed by law, it is the duty of the
judge to impose the said penalty. But
he may give a recommendation to the
president through the DOJ that
executive clemency be granted to the
offender.