Criminally Law (3)

Proximate cause

Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.

Proximate cause is that cause which sets into motion other causes and which unbroken by any efficient supervening cause produces a felony without which such felony could not have resulted. He who is the cause of the cause is the evil of the cause. As a general rule, the offender is criminally liable for all the consequences of his felonious act, although not intended, if the felonious act is the proximate cause of the felony or resulting felony. A proximate cause is not necessarily the immediate cause. This may be a cause which is far and remote from the consequence which sets into motion other causes which resulted in the felony.

Illustrations:

A, B, C, D and E were driving their vehicles along Ortigas Aveue. 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 break, followed by B, C, D. However, E 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 to the damage of the car of A is the car of B, but that is not the proximate cause. The proximate cause is the car of E because it was the car of E which sets into motion the cars to bump into each other.

In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-law, had a quarrel. At the height of their quarrel, A shot B with an airgun. B was hit at the stomach, which bled profusely. When A saw this, he put B on the bed and told him not to leave the bed because he will call a doctor. While A was away, B rose from the bed, went into the kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut his throat. The doctor arrived and said that the wound in the stomach is only superficial; only that it is a bleeder, but the doctor could no longer save him because B’s throat was already cut. Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for manslaughter. The Supreme Court rationalized that what made B cut his throat, in the absence of evidence that he wanted to commit suicide, is the belief that sooner or later, he would die out of the wound inflicted by A. Because of that belief, he decided to shorten the agony by cutting his throat. That belief would not be engendered in his mind were it not because of the profuse bleeding from his wound. Now, that profusely bleeding would not have been there, were it not for the wound inflicted by A. As a result, A was convicted for manslaughter.

In criminal law, as long as the act of the accused contributed to the death of the victim, even if the victim is about to die, he will still be liable for the felonious act of putting to death that victim. In one decision, the Supreme Court held that the most precious moment in a man’s life is that of losing seconds when he is about to die. So when you robbed him of that, you should be liable for his death. Even if a person is already dying, if one suffocates him to end up his agony, one will be liable for murder, when you put him to death, in a situation where he is utterly defenseless.

In US v. Valdez, the deceased is a member of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in charge of the crewmembers 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. It was held that 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. The accused must, therefore, be considered as the author of the death of the victim.

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 the belief that made him risk himself.

If a person shouted fire, and because of that a moviegoer jumped into the fire escape and died, the person who shouted fire when there is no fire is criminally liable for the death of that person.

In a case where a wife had to go out to the cold to escape a brutal husband and because of that she was exposed to the element and caught pneumonia, the husband was made criminally liable for the death of the wife.

Even though the attending physician may have been negligent and the negligence brought about the death of the offending party – in other words, if the treatment was not negligent, the offended party would have survived – is no defense at all, because without the wound inflicted by the offender, there would have been no occasion for a medical treatment.

Even if the wound was called slight but because of the careless treatment, it was aggravated, the offender is liable for the death of the victim not only of the slight physical injuries. Reason – without the injury being inflicted, there would have been no need for any medical treatment. That the medical treatment proved to be careless or negligent, is not enough to relieve the offender of the liability for the inflicting injuries.

When a person inflicted wound upon another, and his victim upon coming home got some leaves, pounded them and put lime there, and applying this to the wound, developed locked jaw and eventually he died, it was held that the one who inflicted the wound is liable for his death.

In another instance, during a quarrel, the victim was wounded. The wound was superficial, but just the same the doctor put inside some packing. When the victim went home, he could not stand the pain, so he pulled out the packing. That resulted into profuse bleeding and he died because of loss of blood. The offender who caused the wound, although the wound caused was only slight, was held answerable for the death of the victim, even if the victim would not have died were it not for the fact that he pulled out that packing. The principle is that without the wound, the act of the physician or the act of the offended party would not have anything to do with the wound, and since the wound was inflicted by the offender, whatever happens on that wound, he should be made punishable for that.

In Urbano v. IAC, A and B had a quarrel and started hacking each other. B was wounded at the back. Cooler heads intervened and they were separated. Somehow, their differences were patched up. A agreed to shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of the wound of B, and to pay him also whatever lost of income B may have failed to receive. B, on the other hand, signed a forgiveness in favor of A and on that condition, he withdrew the complaint that he filed against A. After so many weeks of treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced the wound already healed. Thereafter, B went back to his farm. Two months later, B came home and he was chilling. Before midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. The heirs of B filed a case of homicide against A. The Supreme Court held that A is not liable. It took into account the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical evidence were presented that tetanus toxic is good only for two weeks. That if, indeed, the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of the wound inflicted by A, he would not have lasted two months. What brought about tetanus to infect the body of B was his working in his farm using his bare hands. Because of this, the Supreme Court said that the act of B of 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. A, if at all, is only liable for physical injuries inflicted upon B.

If you are confronted with this facts of the Urbano case, where the offended party died because of tetanus poisoning, reason out according to that reasoning laid down by the Supreme Court, meaning to say, the incubation period of the tetanus poisoning was considered. Since tetanus toxic would affect the victim for no longer than two weeks,, the fact that the victim died two months later shows that it is no longer tetanus brought about by the act of the accused. The tetanus was gathered by his working in the farm and that is already an efficient intervening cause.

The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable. The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely contributory or sometimes totally not liable.


Wrongful act done be different from what was intended

What makes the first paragraph of Article 4 confusing is the qualification “although the wrongful act done be different from what was intended”. There are three situations contemplated under paragraph 1 of Article 4:

(1) Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow;
(2) Error in personae or mistake in identity; and
(3) Praeter intentionem or where the consequence exceeded the intention.


Aberration ictus

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.
Distinguish this from error in personae, where the victim actually received the blow, but he was mistaken for another who was not at the scene of the crime. The distinction is important because the legal effects are not the same.

In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon the intended victim, but because of poor aim the blow landed on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. You have a single act as against the intended victim and also giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. To be more specific, let us take for example A and B. A and B are enemies. As soon as A saw B at a distance, A shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was not B who was hit but C. You can readily see that there is only one single act – the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned, the crime at least is attempted homicide or attempted murder, as the case may be, if there is any qualifying circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C were killed, crime is homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only physical injuries. You cannot have attempted or frustrated homicide or murder as far as C is concerned, because as far as C is concern, there is no intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only physical injuries – serious or less serious or slight.

If the resulting physical injuries were only slight, then you cannot complex; you will have one prosecution for the attempted homicide or murder, and another prosecution for slight physical injuries for the innocent party. But if the innocent party was seriously injured or less seriously injured, then you have another grave or less grave felony resulting from the same act which gave rise to attempted homicide or murder against B; hence, a complex crime.

In other words, aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a complex crime. This being so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed in the maximum period. This is the legal effect. The only time when a complex crime may not result in aberratio ictus is when one of the resulting felonies is a light felony.


Question & Answer

The facts were one of aberratio ictus, but the facts stated that the offender aimed carelessly in firing the shot. Is the felony the result of dolo or culpa? What crime was committed?

All three instances under paragraph 1, Article 4 are the product of dolo. In aberratio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem, never think of these as the product of culpa. They are always the result of an intended felony, and, henc,e dolo. You cannot have these situations out of criminal negligence. The crime committed is attempted homicide or attempted murder, not homicide through reckless imprudence.


Error in personae

In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim. There was really a mistake in identity.

This is very important because Article 49 applies only in a case of error in personae and not in a case of abberatio ictus.

In Article 49, when the crime intended is more serious than the crime actually committed or vice-versa, whichever crime carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will be the one imposed. But it will be imposed in the maximum period. For instance, the offender intended to commit homicide, but what was actually committed with parricide because the person he killed by mistake was somebody related to him within the degree of relationship in parricide. In such a case, the offender will be charged with parricide, but the penalty that would be imposed will be that of homicide. This is because under Article 49, the penalty for the lesser crime will be the one imposed, whatever crime the offender is prosecuted under. In any event, the offender is prosecuted for the crime committed not for the crime intended.

Illustrations:

A thought of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner where B would usually pass. When a figure resembling B was approaching, A hid and when that figure was near him, he suddenly hit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing him. But it turned out that it was his own father. The crime committed is parricide, although what was intended was homicide. Article 49, therefore, will apply because out of a mistake in identity, a crime was committed different from that which was intended.

In another instance, A thought of killing B. Instead of B, C passed. A thought that he was B, so he hit C on the neck, killing the latter. Just the same, the crime intended to be committed is homicide and what was committed is actually homicide, Article 49 does not apply. Here, error in personae is of no effect.

How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime committed is different from that which was intended. If the crime committed is the same as that which was intended, error in personae does not affect the criminal liability of the offender.

In mistake of identity, if the crime committed was the same as the crime intended, but on a different victim, error in persona does not affect the criminal liability of the offender. But if the crime committed was different from the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and the penalty for the lesser crime will be applied. In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating circumstance where Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error in persona is not a mitigating circumstance
Praeter intentionem

In People v. Gacogo, 53 Phil 524, two persons quarreled. They had fist blows. The other started to run away and Gacogo went after him, struck him with a fist blow at the back of the head. Because the victim was running, he lost balance, he fell on the pavement and his head struck the cement pavement. He suffered cerebral hemorrhage. Although Gacogo claimed that he had no intention of killing the victim, his claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. This is so because the purpose of intent to kill is to differentiate the crime of physical injuries from the crime of attempted homicide or attempted murder or frustrated homicide or frustrated murder. But once the victim is dead, you do not talk of intent to kill anymore. The best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that victim was killed. Although Gacogo was convicted for homicide for the death of the person, he was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article13, that is, " that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed”.

This is the consequence of praeter intentionem. In short, praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13. In order however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. If there is no disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, this circumstance cannot be availed of. It cannot be a case of praeter intentionem because the intention of a person is determined from the means resorted to by him in committing the crime.

Illustrations:

A stabbed his friend when they had a drinking spree. While they were drinking, they had some argument about a basketball game and they could not agree, so he stabbed him eleven times. His defense is that he had no intention of killing his friend. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. It was held that the fact that 11 wounds were inflicted on A's friend is hardly compatible with the idea that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong that committed.

In another instance, the accused was a homosexual. The victim ridiculed or humiliated him while he was going to the restroom. He was so irritated that he just stabbed the victim at the neck with a lady’s comb with a pointed handle, killing the victim. His defense was that he did not intend to kill him. He did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing him. That contention was rejected, because the instrument used was pointed. The part of the body wherein it was directed was the neck which is a vital part of the body. In praeter intentionem, it is mitigating only if there is a notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. In criminal law, intent of the offender is determined on the basis employed by him and the manner in which he committed the crime. Intention of the offender is not what is in his mind; it is disclosed in the manner in which he committed the crime.

In still another case, the accused entered the store of a Chinese couple, to commit robbery. They hogtied the Chinaman and his wife. Because the wife was so talkative, one of the offenders got a pan de sal and put it in her mouth. But because the woman was trying to wriggle from the bondage, the pan de sal slipped through her throat. She died because of suffocation. The offender were convicted for robbery with homicide because there was a resulting death, although their intention was only to rob. They were given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, “that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed”. There was really no intention to bring about the killing, because it was the pan de sal they put into the mouth. Had it been a piece of rag, it would be different. In that case, the Supreme Court gave the offenders the benefit of praeter intentionem as a mitigating circumstance. The means employed is not capable of producing death if only the woman chewed the pan de sal.

A man raped a young girl. The young girl was shouting so the man placed his hand on the mouth and nose of the victim. He found out later that the victim was dead already; she died of suffocation. The offender begged that he had no intention of killing the girl and that his only intention was to prevent her from shouting. The Supreme Court rejected the plea saying that one can always expect that a person who is suffocated may eventually die. So the offender was prosecuted for the serious crime of rape with homicide and he was not given the benefit of paragraph 3, Article 13.

Differentiating this first case with the case of the Chinamana nd his wife, it would seem that the difference lies in the means employed by the offender.

In praeter intentionem, it is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender. If the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply.

For example, if A gave B a karate blow in the throat, there is no praeter intentionem because the blow to the throat can result in death.

So also, if A tried to intimidate B by poking a gun at the latter’s back, and B died of a cardiac arrest, A will be prosecuted for homicide but will be given the mitigating circumstance praeter intentionem.


Impossible crime

An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.


Question & Answer

1. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Is an impossible crime committed?

Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with the new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however, that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code – desecrating the dead.

2. A was driving his car around Roxas Boulevard when a person hitched a ride. Because this person was exquisitely dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow inside his car and he continued driving. When he reached a motel, A suddenly swerved his car inside. A started kissing his passenger, but he found out that his passenger was not a woman but a man, and so he pushed him out of the car, and gave him fist blows. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, is there any crime committed at all?

It cannot be an impossible crime, because the act would have been a crime against chastity. The crime is physical injuries or acts of lasciviousness, if this was done against the will of the passenger. There are two ways of committing acts of lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where the acts of lasciviousness were committed under circumstances of rape, meaning to say, there is employment of violence or intimidation or the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the victim is a man, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. This is a crime that is not limited to a victim who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness require a victim to be a woman only when it is committed under circumstances of seduction. If it is committed under the circumstances of rape, the victim may be a man or a woman. The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means employed to bring about the crime. When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted felony.

Under Article 4, paragraph 2, impossible crime is true only when the crime committed would have been against person or against property. It is, therefore, important to know what are the crimes under Title VIII, against persons and those against property under Title X. An impossible crime is true only to any of those crimes.

3. A entered a department store at about midnight, when it was already closed. He went directly to the room where the safe or vault was being kept. He succeeded in opening the safe, but the safe was empty. Is an impossible crime committed? If not, what crime is possibly committed?

This is not an impossible crime. That is only true if there is nothing more to steal. But in a department store, where there is plenty to steal, not only the money inside the vault or safe. The fact that the vault had turned out to be empty is not really inherently impossible to commit the crime of robbery. There are other things that he could take. The crime committed therefore is attempted robbery, assuming that he did not lay his hands on any other article. This could not be trespass to dwelling because there are other things that can be stolen.

4. A and B were lovers. B was willing to marry A except that A is already married. A thought of killing his wife. He prepared her breakfast every morning, and every morning, he placed a little dose of arsenic poison into the breakfast of the wife. The wife consumed all the food prepared by her husband including the poison but nothing happened to the wife. Because of the volume of the household chores that the wife had to attend to daily, she developed a physical condition that rendered her so strong and resistance to any kind of poisoning, so the amount of poison applied to her breakfast has no effect to her. Is there an impossible crime?

No impossible crime is committed because the fact itself stated that what prevented the poison from taking effect is the physical condition of the woman. So it implies that if the woman was not of such physical condition, the poison would have taken effect. Hence, it is not inherently impossible to realize the killing. The crime committed is frustrated parricide.

If it were a case of poisoning , an impossible crime would be constituted if a person who was thinking that it was a poison that he was putting into the food of the intended victim but actually it was vetsin or sugar or soda. Under any and all circumstances, the crime could not have been realized. But if due to the quantity of vetsin or sugar or soda, the intended victim developed LBM and was hospitalized, then it would not be a case of impossible crime anymore. It would be a case of physical injuries, if the act done does not amount to some other crime under the Revised Penal Code.

Do not confuse an impossible crime with the attempted or frustrated stage.

5. Scott and Charles are roommate in a boarding house. Everyday, Scott leaves for work but before leaving he would lock the food cabinet where he kept his food. Charles resented this. One day, he got an electric cord tied the one end to the door knob and plugged the other end to an electric outlet. The idea was that, when Scott comes home to open the door knob, he would be electrocuted. Unknown to Charles, Scott is working in an electronic shop where he received a daily dosage of electric shock. When Scott opened the doorknob, nothing happened to him. He was just surprised to find out that there was an electric cord plugged to the outlet and the other hand to the door knob. Whether an impossible crime was committed or not?

It is not an impossible crime. The means employed is not inherently impossible to bring about the consequence of his felonious act. What prevented the consummation of the crime was because of some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.

6. A and B are enemies. A, upon seeing B, got the revolver of his father, shot B, but the revolver did not discharge because the bullets were old, none of them discharged. Was an impossible crime committed?

No. It was purely accidental that the firearm did not discharge because the bullets were old. If they were new, it would have fired. That is a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender, and therefore, an attempted homicide.

But if let us say, when he started squeezing the trigger, he did not realize that the firearm was empty. There was no bullet at all. There is an impossible crime, because under any and all circumstances, an unloaded firearm will never fire.

Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest than an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the inherent impossibility.

If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”, this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so far by the act done by him. The reason is an offender is punished for an impossible crime just to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed, but subjectively, he is a criminal. That purpose of the law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some other crime constituted by his acts which are also punishable under the RPC.

7. A and B are neighbors. They are jealous of each other’s social status. A thought of killing B so A climbed the house of B through the window and stabbed B on the heart, not knowing that B died a few minutes ago of bangungot. Is A liable for an impossible crime?

No. A shall be liable for qualified trespass to dwelling. Although the act done by A against B constitutes an impossible crime, it is the principle of criminal law that the offender shall be punished for an impossible crime only when his act cannot be punished under some other provisions in the Revised Penal Code.

In other words, this idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under some other provision of the Revised Penal Code.

If the question is “Is an impossible crime is committed?”, the answer is yes, because on the basis of the facts stated, an impossible crime is committed. But to play safe, add another paragraph: However, the offender will not be prosecuted for an impossible crime but for _____ [state the crime]. Because it is a principle in criminal law that the offender can only be prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do not constitute some other crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code. An impossible crime is a crime of last resort.


Modified concept of impossible crime:

In a way, the concept of impossible crime has been modified by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Intod v. CA, et al., 215 SCRA 52. In this case, four culprits, all armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went to the intended victim’s house and after having pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at and riddled said room with bullets, thinking that the intended victim was already there as it was about 10:00 in the evening. It so happened that the intended victim did not come home on the evening and so was not in her bedroom at that time. Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment but the Supreme Court modified the same and held the petitioner liable only for the so-called impossible crime. As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to imprisonment of only six months of arresto mayor for the felonious act he committed with intent to kill: this despite the destruction done to the intended victim’s house. Somehow, the decision depreciated the seriousness of the act committed, considering the lawlessness by which the culprits carried out the intended crime, and so some members of the bench and bar spoke out against the soundness of the ruling. Some asked questions: Was it really the impossibility of accomplishing the killing that brought about its non-accomplishment? Was it not purely accidental that the intended victim did not come home that evening and, thus, unknown to the culprits, she was not in her bedroom at the time it was shot and riddled with bullets? Suppose, instead of using firearms, the culprits set fire on the intended victim’s house, believing she was there when in fact she was not, would the criminal liability be for an impossible crime?

Until the Intod case, the prevailing attitude was that the provision of the Revised Penal Code on impossible crime would only apply when the wrongful act, which would have constituted a crime against persons or property, could not and did not constitute another felony. Otherwise, if such act constituted any other felony although different from what the offender intended, the criminal liability should be for such other felony and not for an impossible crime. The attitude was so because Article 4 of the Code provides two situations where criminal liability shall be incurred, to wit:

Art 4. Criminal liability – Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Paragraph 1 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done constituted a felony although it may be different from what he intended. Paragraph 2 refers to a situation where the wrongful act done did not constitute any felony, but because the act would have given rise to a crime against persons or against property, the same is penalized to repress criminal tendencies to curtail their frequency. Because criminal liability for impossible crime presupposes that no felony resulted from the wrongful act done, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine from P200.00 to P500.00, depending on the “social danger and degree of criminality shown by the offender” (Article 59), regardless of whether the wrongful act was an impossible crime against persons or against property.

There is no logic in applying paragraph 2 of Article 4 to a situation governed by paragraph 1 of the same Article, that is, where a felony resulted. Otherwise, a redundancy and duplicity would be perpetrated.

In the Intod case, the wrongful acts of the culprits caused destruction to the house of the intended victim; this felonious act negates the idea of an impossible crime. But whether we agree or not, the Supreme Court has spoken, we have to respect its ruling.


NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING IT

When a person is charged in court, and the court finds that there is no law applicable, the court will acquit the accused and the judge will give his opinion that the said act should be punished.

Article 5 covers two situations:

(1) The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not constitute a crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but the court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.

(2) Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of he crime, the judge should impose the law. The most that he could do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant executive clemency.