Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes

Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen

Criminal Law by Dean Carlos Ortega
Book 1 of the Revised Penal Code (1-113) [Act No. 3815
December 8, 1930} AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE
AND OTHER PENAL LAWS
Not all wrongs constitute a crime
DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW
That branch of public substantive law which defines
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their
punishment. [Reyes, citing 12 Cyc. 129]
Crime
2 Categories:
 Mala in se (“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act
that is inherently immoral, such as murder,
arson or rape. [note: the common mistake made
here is students limit mala inse to crimes found
in the revised penal code which is wrong. Never
assume that a crime is not in the revised penal
code then it is a mala prohibita]
In crime in mala inse, lack of malice or lack of criminal
intent in a valid defense or good faith is a valid
defense, so in meaning to say: in good faith
 Mala Prohibita (“prohibited evil”) – An act that is
a crime merely because it is prohibited by
statute, although the act itself is not necessarily
immoral.
Mala Prohibita Vs Mala In se
In mala prohibita, regardless of the intent of the
offender, as long as he voluntarily went against the
provision, meaning to say he did not act under duress
there will be criminal liability, so good faith is not a
defense, however relative to this point you will recall
under the anti-graft and corrupt practices act in
subsection E of section 3 thereof causing undue
injury to another whether private or the
government, giving unwarranted benefits to another
out of manifest partiality or evident bad faith or
gross excusable negligence. This is one of the ways of
violating said law. Note: you must know that violating
the anti-graft and corrupt practices act considerably
mala prohibita.
In this particular violation where undue injury is
caused out of evident bad faith, Supreme Court
already ruled that the only way to allow the accused
to defend himself is to allow him to adduce evidence Commented [SM1]: cite as evidence.
that he acted in good faith. The higher court said this
should be taken as an exception to the principle that
in crimes mala prohibita good faith is not a defense
but in this particular case since the basis of the
accusation is alleged evident bad faith the only way
for the accused to defend himself is to show he
proceeded in good faith.

Mala in Se Mala Prohibita

As to nature Wrong from its very nature; So serious Wrong because it is prohibited by law;
in their effects on society as to call for
condemnation of members.

As to use of good faith GF a valid defense, unless the crime is GF is not a defense
as defense the result of culpa

As to WON criminal Criminal intent is an element Criminal intent is immaterial, BUT still
intent is an element requires intelligence & voluntariness

As to degree of Degree of accomplishment is taken The act gives rise to a crime only when
accomplishment of into account for the punishment consummated.
crime

As to mitigating and They are taken into account in They are not taken into account.
aggravating imposing penalty
circumstances

As to degree of When there is more than one Degree of participation is generally

participation offender, the degree of participation of not taken into account. All who
each in the commission is taken into participated in the act are punished to
account. the same extent.

Page 1 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
As to stages of There are three stages: (a) attempted, No such stages of execution
execution (b) frustrated & (c) consummated

As to persons The (a) principal, (b) accomplice & (c) Generally, only the principal is liable.
criminally liable accessory. Penalty of offenders is same whether they
Penalty is computed on the basis of acted as mere accomplices or accessories
whether he is a principal offender or merely
an accomplice or accessory
As to what laws are Generally, the RPC. Generally, special laws.
violated

As to division of Penalties may be divided into degrees There is no such division of penalties.
penalties and periods.

Exception To The
Exception:
Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita. When the accused is a
habitual delinquent.
In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the act alone (Art. 22)
irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense. Where the new law
expressly made
Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid inapplicable to pending
actions or existing
defenses in crimes mala prohibita.
causes of actions.
[Tavera v. Valdez]
When the acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in
Statutory; it is passed by May be promulgated by the
se, even if punished under special law, like plunder which the Legislature Legislature (e.g. jurisdiction
requires proof of criminal intent. [Estrada v. of courts) or the Judiciary
Sandiganbayan (2001)] (e.g. Rules of Court)

Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense.

A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime punishable by a
special law if it is a necessary ingredient of the felony
defined in the Code but a special law can never absorb a
crime punishable under the RPC, because violations of
the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation
of a special law. [People v. Rodriguez (1960)]
The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum prohibitum but a
modification of the crime of theft of large cattle under the
RPC (i.e. there are special laws which only modify crimes
under the RPC therefore still mala in se). [People v.
Martinada]
I. CRIMINAL LAW V. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
It is substantive It is remedial.
Prospective in Retroactive in application.
application.
Exception: If it is
favorable to the accused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theories underlying a criminal law system:
 Classical Philosophy
 Positivist Philosophy
 Eclectic Philosophy - most of the modern codes
now are premised on this philosophy
Q: (BAR) the principal characteristic of each school of
thought that distinguishes each from the others?
- (1) the Classical philosophy focuses on the criminal
nature of the act committed, the human element in the
commission of the crime is scantily given attention. {To
Exemplify the philosophy is the maxim: an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth this exemplifies classical philosophy,
Code of Hammurabi}
*Under the Classical philosophy, the purpose of criminal
law is to exact retribution
Ortega Note: the classical philosophy is barbaric, the role
of criminal law must be to reform, because man is
basically is a moral creature and what makes him bad is

Page 2 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
the environment, this is the view of the positivist or realist
schools of thought.
(2) The approach under the positivist philosophy is to
correct the offender, the penalty must be proportionate
to the wrong done but always considering principally the
human element behind the act or the omission that
brought about the crime.
*Under the positivist philosophy, the role of criminal law is
to reform, therefore the penalty must be geared along this
objective.
*Before the penalty would be imposed in a penal system
adopting the positivist/realistic philosophy there will be a
panel of social scientist from different walks of life to
access the criminality of the offender and only thereafter
will the penalty be considered appropriate be imposed.
This is parallel to the jurist system where as the jurie is
made up of persons from different walks of life, where in
they are supposed to view and access the crime. Note: But
then in some countries, this thinking proves to be
inadequate not enough to check the spread of criminality.
- (3) Eclectic Philosophy (Mixed philosophy), advocates
that the treatment of crimes should be classified whether
they are (a) heinous in nature or they are (b) economic or
social beginning, (a1) that if the crime was heinous then
the classical attitude should be adopted, penalty must be
severe to a point that the offender will not repeat such
act. On the other hand if the nature of the crime is one of
(b1) economic or social beginning- the positivist/realist
approach should be adopted.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
Strict construction against the State and liberally in favor
of the accused
Pro Reo Doctrine – Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations - one lenient to the offender and one strict
to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and presumption of
innocence of the accused.
The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed
against the State may be invoked only where the law is
ambiguous and there is doubt as to its interpretation.
Where the law is clear and unambiguous, there is no
room for the application of the rule. [People v.
Gatchalian]
[Art. III, Sec. 14 (2), 1987 Const. In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved… ]
Now in Criminal Law, there is a peculiar rule or doctrine
known as Pro reo, this rule or doctrine is to the effect in
the construction, interpretation and application of a
penal law or law which is penal in nature, the law should
always be construed and applied lenient to the offender, so
given a problem where there are more than one felonies
possibly committed, you don’t choose that more serious
one, you always choose the lesser one, no less the
supreme court said: Our revised penal code inclines
towards a milder criminal responsibilities. Some problems
given in the past enunciate this rule, for instance,
eg. A man is known for his voyeurism, one who fits
the mentality of a peeping tom, while this man was
ascending the stair of the lrt, he was following a lady, he
held the waistline of the lady and pinches her, and the lady
became angry and berated him. Q: what would consider as
the crime committed? (Ortega note: many would say acts
of lasciviousness; this decision would go against the rule of
Commented [SM2]:
Pro Reo, holding the waistline is not by nature an act of
lasciviousness, such act is done by people with their Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the
partners and the waist is not a private part, so this act crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in
would only amount to an irritation or a vexation, so the which the felony committed is different from that which the
crime then is unjust vexation which is a form of light offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
coercion. So in other words in figuring out the crime observed:
committed, you do not step ahead of what is given in the
facts otherwise you are going against the rule of Pro Reo. 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher
than that corresponding to the offense which the accused
Even in the provisions of the revised penal code,
there are provisions that implement this doctrine. eg. In intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter
the case of error in persone, Art. 49, between the crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
intended and the crime actually committed, if the variance
was created by a mistake in identity that felony between, 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower
the one intended and the one committed Q: which carries than that corresponding to the one which the accused
the lesser penalty shall be the one imposed?, this goes intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be
against the decision made by the examinees in the imposed in its maximum period.
problem cited above, always the lesser or the milder
liability.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall
not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person
shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime,
if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter
offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted
So when there is doubt on whether several
or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period
participants on the commission of a crime would be
Page 3 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
regarded as principal, accomplice of accessory, you always
incline towards being a mere accomplice or accessory, so
one of the provisions in Art. 17 on who may be made
liable as principals in the commission of a felony, you have
there a situation where a person who induces or directly
forces another to commit a crime is a co-principal but if
would read decisions of the high court, you will notice that
the decisions incline towards an inducement bringing
about the liabilities of an accomplice, this inducement is
considered to be merely a sort of moral encouragement
for a person to proceed with a commission of a felony.
So to consider a participant in a crime liable as a co-
principal it must be that the crime committed would had
not been committed had it not been for the inducement,
so if there were any other hint in the crime for the
principal to have his/her own reason to commit the same,
the one who induce them would not be liable as a co-
principal, he will only be liable as an accomplice.
Another Principle: The act cannot be criminal if the mind is
not criminal. A problem was given in the Bar before:
‘Where a government employee during the last days of his
serious illness filed an application for accumulated sick
leave, as usual the government is slow in processing this
application so when this application was finally approved
the applicant was already dead, the notice that the
application was approved was sent to his house, it was the
widow who received this so the widow came the office of
her deceased husband to claim the said cheque, the co-
workers were sympathetic and helped her with the papers
required for the release of the cheque which was actually
a treasury warrant, then she went to the cashier, and
cashed the check without however imitating the
signature of her husband, when the COA-auditor learned
that the cheque was released when the payee thereof
was already dead and investigation was conducted and
the investigation eventually pointed to the widow as the
one who received the cheque and who also signed the
requirement for the cheque, by signing the cheque which
is considered a public/commercial document as it is a
treasury warrant, the widow was prosecuted for
falsification of a public or commercial document that of
causing it to appear that a person participated in an act or
proceeding when in fact he did not. So the trial court lost
time convicting the widow simply on the premise that the
document where the falsification was committed is a
public document or at least a commercial document were
damaged or were intended to cause damage are not
necessary, so in other words its mechanical, the moment
you sign the document you are liable, this is the kind of
mentality a lot of lawyers currently underclaim which is
wrong because in our country we still presume innocence,
“we should always look on the brighter side of things as
future lawyers” -Ortega. So they convicted the widow, the
widow had no choice but to appeal to the court of appeals,
and the court of appeals affirmed the conviction as the law
is only interested in preserving the tape and credit of the
document whether damage is done or not is immaterial.
SC in this case Luwege Vs COA, 1983 Bar exams.
The SC said the act may be wrong but not all wrong
constitute a crime, the amount is really due to the
deceased husband, the widow received the cheque to
have the amount needed to pay the hospital and the rest
for the burial expenses, in fact the SC observed the total
amount released was not even enough, SC said what kind
of justice is this where we make somebody a criminal
when their mind is not criminal. This went ran against the
maxim: “The act cannot be criminal when the mind is
not criminal”
In the Philippines there are no common law crimes, no
matter what an act maybe, if there is no law punishing the
act as a crime it will only give rise to civil liability and
possibly administrative liability if the offender where a
public officer but not criminal liability.
ORTEGA NOTES ^above are principles you should not
deviate from, because these are the characteristics of our
criminal law.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rules of: Nullum crimen sine lege ("no crime without law") Commented [SM3]: is the moral principle in criminal law
and Nulla poena sine lege ("no penalty without a law") and international criminal law that a person cannot or
should not face criminal punishment except for an act
that was criminalized by law before he/she performed the
Q: What is a common law crime? in common law act.
countries, there are common law crimes, where in the
Commented [SM4]: is a legal principle, requiring that one
wrong doer is brought before a court of equity not a court cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by
of law, where the presiding magistrate determines law. This principle is accepted and codified in modern democratic
whether the act is repulsive to the accepted norm of states as a basic requirement of the rule of law.
conduct in society/community if so, a certain sanction is
applied against the wrong doer. However we do not have
this here in the Philippines, here no matter how bad of
wrong the act maybe (i)if there is no law particularly
punishing this, the doer of thereof cannot be prosecuted
for a crime, and this has been the premise of some
problems given in the bar before, so you have to stick to
this principle that adheres to our system of criminal law.
DO NOT GO AGAINST THIS(i), as ours is a civil law country.
Page 4 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
Now since crimes in the Philippines are creatures of the
law, so without a law there is no crime. Q: (BAR) is there
any limitation to the power of congress to enact penal
laws or they can just declare an act a crime impose a
penalty they consider to be so? - There are limitations to
the authority of congress to enact a penal law, and the
limitations are found in the fundamental law itself, the
constitution. There are 4 prominent limitations: 1. the
penal law to be enacted must be of general application, on
this the enactment of class legislation is prohibited 2. The
penal law to enacted should not operate as an ex post
facto law. (in short penal law should not be made to enact
retroactively when it will be against the accused) 3. That
the intended penal law to be enacted should not prescribe
cruel and unusual punishment nor impose excessive fines
(last limitation under the fundamental law) q: (BAR;
political law) Can congress enact a law imposing the
death penalty upon a convict by tickling him until he
dies? - The question hinges on the and unusual
punishments, in short should the penalty be considered un
constitutional if the penalty is both cruel and unusual,
then therefore the penalty of tickling to death is
constitutional as it is only unusual but not cruel. But
because the word “and” this provision of the constitution
is interpreted and construed is required the concurrence
of the two then the answer of the question is no, because
the fundamental law does not only prohibit cruel or
unusual penalty but any penalty that is both cruel or
unusual.
*Ortega notes, in reviewing give more focus to the
exceptions; most of the problems are given on the
exceptions. Not only the general rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Violations of the revised penal code are referred to as:
Felonies (IMPORTANT). So when you encounter this word
given in any situation, you take it that the violation
referred to a crime under the revised penal code.
In Art. 160 (On Quasi Recidivism)
already serving a sentence or (2) about to sentence is not
a felony he is not a quasi-recidivist.
^This was subject to a bar problem, where in the routinary
inspection of the different cells of convicted prisoners
serving sentence, a certain amount of ‘shabu’ was found
on the bunker of JOSE (A), prosecuted for the violation of
the dangerous drugs law, he was found guilty and
convicted. q: Is he a quasi-recidivist? - No, because the
violation of the dangerous drugs act is not punished in the Commented [SM5]: refers to legislation that applies to
revised penal code anymore, the provisions of the revised certain persons or class of persons, either natural or artificial,
penal code under Title 5 of Book 2 involving prohibited or to certain districts of territory or state.
drugs had been expressly repealed by the dangerous drug Commented [SM6]: with retroactive effect or force
act of 1972; RA 6425 expressly repealed by the current
comprehensive dangerous drugs act of 2002. So the point
here is the crime committed by the convict while serving
sentence is not a felony and therefore cannot be
considered a quasi-recidivist.
Art. 3 Of the Penal Code (PC)
=======================================
Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be 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 must be attended by Dolo (criminal intent) or
atleast incurred through Culpa (criminal negligence)
It is here where the act maybe wrong but it does not
amount to a crime because the act was incurred without
malice (culpa)
Q: may a person incur criminal liability when he is acting
without malice/criminal intent? A: yes, it is under article
3, you are told that a felony that brings about criminal
liability may arise on the base of (1) dolos (Criminal
intent/Malice) or on the base of (2) culpa (Criminal
negligence) so there are 2 bases by which criminal
liability maybe incurred under the revised penal code.

For a person to be considered to be a Quasi Recidivist, he
must have (1) committed a crime while he was already
serving sentence or (2) about to serve sentence because
he is already convicted by final judgment but in Art. 160,
the article specifically refers to the crime committed by
such convicted offender while he was serving sentence
already or before he was to serve such sentence must be a
felony. So if the (1) crime committed by a convict who is
Q: (BAR) facts: a person who decide to commit suicide
from a tall building from there he jumped down below,
but instead of falling on the concrete pavement he fell on
another person, and it was the latter who died, now
question was there criminal liability?
A: (answer was copied from a case from the United States)
initial answer was no, since committing suicide is not a
felony. When a person jumps from a tall building to
commit suicide, is the criminal intent: the decision to
commit suicide or is just the motive jumping. Note: Now
Commented [SM7]: Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by
final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to
serve such sentence, or while serving the same. He shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by
law for the new felony. The penalty is justified because of the
perversity and incorrigibility of the offender.

Page 5 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
let us situate ourselves to our setting, lets say it’s the feast
of the Nazarene, with all the hullabaloo, there is this
sinner, now this sinner went up top of a tall building
fronting the quiapo church from there he wanted to join
the penitent but he could not since there were too many
people, now he wanted to commit suicide because of the
many sins he had committed, he jumped, as expected he
did not die since he landed on several persons below,
now is there no criminal intent?, is that not culpa?, him
knowing he would fall on a lot of people, so there is the
point.
Under our revised penal code the criminal
liability arises not only when the offender acted with
malice/criminal intent, you see in title 14 book 2 of the
penal code where criminal negligence is considered a
quasi-offence.
Under the civil code on property, you have this
rule that a person may abuse his property as long as he
does not injure the property of others, now what more if
this would be applied to life, eg. A person wanted to end
his life but instead ended the life of another. Even in the
commission of suicide, one must act with due care that he
will not be able to kill somebody who does want to die yet.
And under the penal code, culpa is to be considered
through or be the result of (1) reckless imprudence, (2)
simple negligence, (3) lack of foresight or (4) lack of skill so
even in the commission of suicide, one must act with skill.
There in mind that under the penal code criminal liability
may arise not only when the wrong doer acted with
(dolos) malice or criminal intent but even when the wrong
done was the result of reckless imprudence, etc. that is
why the penalties for culpable felonies is generally one
degree lower than the penalty for the same felony
committed with malice or criminal intent.
Relative to this essential requirement to
constitute a felony aside from dolo and culpa, you must
know the so called mistake of fact. Mistake of fact
negatives criminal intent, from this you can readily
understand; if the felony was the result of culpa you don’t
talk of mistake of fact because mistake of fact is pertinent
only to criminal intent, if the offender was negligent of
not verifying the true state of facts and because of that, he
committed a felony out of the mistake of fact, he will still
be criminally liable, mistake of fact is a defense only in
intentional felony. So the concept of this mistake of fact in
criminal law is that the act would’ve been justifiable had
the facts believed so by the offender would have been
true to his belief, so the simple question whether there
would be criminal liability or not?, because of the
supposed mistake of fact is this if the facts believed so by
the offender would have been true to what he believe
them to be will the act of the offender be justifiable? If
the answer is yes then that is mistake of fact, if the answer
is no then that is not mistake of fact in criminal law. The
mistake of fact contemplated in criminal law is one that
would render the act justified; mistake of fact in criminal
law presupposes absence of criminal intent. Q: (BAR)
Facts: A married man worked overtime in his office coming
home past midnight, not wanting to awaken his
household; he uses his own key to enter the house, there
upon he proceeded to the master bedroom and switch on
the lights, it was there he was surprised there was in his
conjugal bed a man and a woman engaged in sexual
intercourse, there upon he pulled out his handgun and
fired four shots against the two, the latters were killed
instantaneously, the shots awaken the household, shortly
after his wife with his children come out, Question: will
this man be criminally liable?, is there mistake of fact?
(Ortega note: because of the 2nd question, most examiners
will be thinking this question is a matter of ‘mistake of
fact’, so the common answer was: not criminally liable, so
they proceeded to explain on the premise that the crime
was a result of a mistake of fact, he mistook that the
woman involved in the sexual intercourse was his own
wife, committing adultery and shot them immediately) on
that premise is that mistake of fact? Is not mistake of fact
but rather mistake of identity, and mistake in identity is
never absolutory, the most you could apply is Art. 49 error
in personae, under this code there is criminal liability. This
problem therefore poise to the examinees the burden of
differentiate or distinguish mistake of identity to mistake
of fact, do not presume the any mistake is the mistake of
fact. [Ortega Note: Caution to not read too much, but
read what is modern. Not what is obsolete, try to
paraphrase what you have read.]
Under Art. 4, you have the basis of criminal
liability for felonies under the code naturally criminal
liability will arise when the act is felonious.
Now you only have 2 situations under Art. 4 of the code as Commented [SM9]: Art. 4. Criminal liability. —
to when criminal liability will arise. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
(1) A felony is committed, although the wrongful act done 1. By any person committing a felony (delito)
was different from what the offender intended. although the wrongful act done be different from
As long as the act is felonious there will be that which he intended.
criminal liability, criminal liability maybe for the intended
2. By any person performing an act which would
crime or the crime that actually resulted, because the act be an offense against persons or property, were
is sheer felonious in nature. If the act was felonious but it not for the inherent impossibility of its
the resulting crime was different from the offender had accomplishment or an account of the
intended in order to hold the offender for the resulting employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
crime which was not intended by him it is essential that
his felonious act must be the proximate cause of the Commented [SM8]: In criminal law, a mistake of fact
resulting felony that was not intended by him, otherwise can usually operate as a defense so long as it is
the offender performing the felonious act will only be reasonable. With crimes that require specific intent,
liable for the consequence which is the logical and natural even an unreasonable mistake of fact might work as a
consequence of his felonious act. The liability maybe defense.
mitigated by the circumstance that the offender did not
intend to commit such a grave a wrong but he will still be
prosecuted for the crime arising from his felonious act
event though he never wanted to commit such crime.
So it is important to know what proximate
cause means, proximate cause is different from immediate
cause/direct cause, immediate cause/direct cause is the
one nearest in a point of time to the resulting felony, while
proximate cause is far removed from the resulting felony
Page 6 of 7
Criminal Law Discussion By Dean Carlos Ortega + other notes
Transcribed and Prepared by: Real, Sheen
but which sets into motion other causes which without
any supervening sufficient cause resulted to a crime
without such the crime would not have arisen. The direct
cause may also be the proximate cause but it is not always
the case.
Q: Facts: A passenger runs amok inside a passenger bus
killing already 10 persons stabbing them, a man and a
woman, seated at the rear seat of the bus, jumped out of
the window of the bus, fearing that they may lose their
lives, when they fell on the cemented highway; they lost
consciousness, another passenger bus following the bus
they jumped out of, ran over the man and woman, killing
them. Now Q: Who will be liable for the death of the
two? - (note: the driver of the second bus is the direct
cause of the death of the two, but that does not mean that
he will be criminally liable, to be criminally liable his act
must be the proximate cause of that death, the syllogism Commented [SM10]: ) is a kind of logical argument that
would present to you would they have fallen had not the applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on
man start stabbing people, the answer is no thus two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be
preventing their demise. So as you can deduce the driver true
was not the proximate cause but the direct cause, unless
the direct cause is also the proximate cause there will be
no criminal liability because in criminal law the basis is the
proximate cause that brings upon the felony.

There are three (3) situations on this^

1.) Aberratio Ictus Commented [SM11]: Aberratio Ictus is mistake in the
2.) Error in Persone blow. It is a manner or incurring criminal liability according
3.) Praeter intentionem to Paragraph 1, Article 4, Revised Penal Code. It is a mistake
In all these situations bear in mind the felonious in the identity of the victim, which may either be (a) "error in
personae" (mistake of the person), or (b) "aberratio ictus"
act was attended by dolo not by culpa. (mistake in the blow), it is neither exempting nor mitigating
These are instances where the offender (People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 [1930]).
intentionally
Commented [SM12]: Error in personae or mistake in
1:25:00 identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to
whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different
from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability of
the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity
resulted to a crime different from what the offender
intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty
between the crime intended and the crime committed shall
be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
Commented [SM13]: Praeter intentionem or where the
consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a
mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the
offender and the resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not
be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from the act
or means employed by him.

Page 7 of 7