Article 3. Definition of Felony

ACTS AND OMISSIONS PUNISHABLE BY LAW ARE FELONIES

ACTS

  • For an act or omission to be considered a felony it must first be defined by the RPC as constituting a felony
  • What is an act? It is any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world. Or simply it must be overt.
  • Only external acts are punished so a criminal thought or intent, no matter ow immoral and improper, will never Constitute a felony.

OMISSIONS

  • Is the failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do.
  • In felonies by Omissions, there is a law requiring a certain act to be performed and the person required tp do the act fails to perform it.
  • Because there is no law that punishes it, not reporting to the authorities the commission of a crime which he witnessed does not constitute a crime.

FELONIES ARE COMMITTED NOT ONLY BY MEANS OF DECIET (DOLO) BUT ALSO BY MEANS OF FAULT (CULPA)

INTENTIONAL OR DOLO FELONIES

  • The act or omission is of malicious intent.
  • When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has intention to do an injury to the person, property, or right of another, such offender acts with malice.
  • Requisites of Dolo or Malice
    • Freedom - If a person acts without freedom then he is not human but merely a tool. Criminal Liability is extinguished.
    • Intelligence - A person that is %%mentally challenged, insane, and an infant under 9 years of age as, well as a minor over 9 but less than 15 years old%% and acting without discernment, have no criminal liability.
    • Intent - existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of a person. %%Criminal Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful act.%%
  • The presumption of criminal intent does not arise from the proof of the commission of an act which is not lawful. But it must borne in mind that the act from which such presumption springs must be criminal.

FELONIES BY FAULT OR CULPA

  • There is no malice or intention to harm or injure in the performance of an act or in incurring an omission.
  • An intermediate act which the Revised Penal Code qualifies as imprudence or negligence.
  • A person who caused an injury, without intention to cause an evil, may be held liable for culpable felony.
  • The injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice.
  • Requisites for felonies by means of Culpa or Fault:
    • Freedom - If a person acts without freedom then he is not human but merely a tool. Criminal Liability is extinguished.
    • Intelligence - A person that is %%mentally challenged, insane, and an infant under 9 years of age as, well as a minor over 9 but less than 15 years old%% and acting without discernment, have no criminal liability.
    • Imprudence, Negligence or Lack of Foresight or Skill
    • Imprudence - voluntarily, but without malice, %%doing or failing to do an act%% from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act. (Article 365, Revised Penal Code)
    • Negligence -  is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances
  • Negligence exists in cases of %%complacence, lack of attention%%, while imprudence occurs in cases of %%hurry, rashness, insufficient consideration.%%

Illustrative Cases:

People vs. Garcia

Facts

  • Bentley crossed the street and waited on the center island for Sanily to cross. While Sanily was crossing the street, a passenger jeepney driven by appellant, coming from Camarin and heading towards Quirino Highway, hit her on the left side of the body.
  • he jeepney stopped. But as Bentley was running towards his sister, the vehicle suddenly accelerated with its front tire running over Sanily’s stomach.
  • Bentley and appellant pulled Sanily, who was writhing in excruciating pain, from underneath the vehicle and brought her to the Sta. Lucia Hospital but due to lack of medical facilities. However, she died four days later.
  • Appellant admitted having ran over the victim, but claimed that it was an accident.
  • He narrated that while driving his passenger jeepney along Zabarte Road, he saw a boy crossing the street followed by the victim. While the vehicle was running, he heard a thud. He immediately applied his breaks and alighted to check what it was.
  • He saw to his horror a girl sprawled underneath his vehicle between the front and the rear tires.
  • He and the victim’s brother rushed the girl to the Sta. Lucia Hospital, but they transferred her to the Quezon City General Hospital which has better facilities. A week later, he learned that the victim died.

Issue

  • whether or not appellant is guilty of murder or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Held

  • Appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he disregarded a traffic sign cautioning motorists to slow down and drove his vehicle in full speed despite being aware that he was traversing a school zone and pedestrians were crossing the street. %%He should have observed due diligence of a reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed and proceeding cautiously while passing the area.%%
  • ==Appellant Renato Garcia y Romano is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime reckless imprudence resulting in homicide==

People vs Pugay

Facts

  • Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived at scene and appeared to be drunk as they were all happy and noisy.
  • As the group saw MIranda, the deceased, walking nearby, they started making fun of him. They made the deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of wood.
  • The accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the Ferris wheel and  poured its contents on the body of the victim.
  • Then, the accused  Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.

Issue

  • W.O.N Pugay and Samson were both guilty of an intentional  felony.

Held

  • There is nothing in the records showing that there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between the two accused-appellants immediately before the commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the deceased and the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased
  • The stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, %%he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased.%%
  • ==Pugay is only guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.==
  • The accused Samson %%knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise.%%
  • ==The accused Samson is only guilty of the crime of homicide==

Mistake of Fact

  • Mistake of facts is a misapprehension of the fact on the part f the person who caused injury to another.
  • Mistake of facts extinguishes criminal liability because the person acted without criminal intent
  • Requisites of mistake of facts as a defense:
    • The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
    • That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
    • The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

U.S Vs. Ah Chong

Facts

  • Ah Chong was a cook for in Ft. Mc Kinley.
  • Ah Chong, because of repeated robberies, kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection.
  • Before going to bed he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door.
  • After having gone to bed he was awakened by the sound of someone trying to open the door and enter the room.
  • He called out twice “who’s there?” No one person did not respond
  • He leaped from bed and called out “If you enter the room I will kill you.”
  • The door swung open causing the chair that was against it to hit Ah Chong. Believing that he was being attacked, Ah Chong seized the knife under his bed and struck and fatally wounding wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate.

Issue

  • W.O.N Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of facts

Held

  • Yes. All the requisites for mistake of facts were present in the case. ==Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intruder under Art. 11, Paragraph 1, of the RPC.==

\

People vs. Oanis

Facts

  • Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Galanta were under instructions apprehend one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
  • They proceeded to the suspected house, they went to a room and seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him, without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity.
  • The victim turned out to be an innocent man.

Issue

  • W.O.N Oanis and Galanta are guilty of murder.

Held

  • ==Yes. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping.==
  • When the accused is negligent, mistake of facts is not a defense. (People vs De Fernando, 49 Phil. 75)
  • Criminal Intent is necessary in felonies committed by means of dolo:
    • Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.
    • Actus me invito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me without my will is not my act.
  • Mistake in the Identity of the intended victim is not reckless imprudence. It’s just stupid.

The 3rd class of crimes are those punished by special laws

  • Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws.
  • In many cases the act complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect which the statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisely the same force and result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or bad.
  • The rule is that in acts mala in se, there must be a criminal intent; but in those mala prohibita, it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done.

Illustrative Case:

The People of the Philippine Islands vs Bayona

Facts

  • While the general elections were being held in electoral precinct number 4, the defendant here was surprised by Jose E. Desiderio, who was then the representative of the Department of the Interior to inspect the general elections in the Province of Capiz, and by the commander of the Constabulary F.B. Agdamag who was on that occasion with the aforementioned Jose E. Desiderio, carrying on his belt the Colt 32-caliber revolver inside the fence that surrounded the building destined for the aforementioned electoral college number 4 and at a distance 22 meters from the aforementioned electoral college.
  • The defense, through the testimony of Jose D. Benliro and Dioscoro Buenvenida, tried to establish that the defendant here stopped in the street that faced polling station number 4 at the invitation of said Jose D. Benliro and with the aim of begging the aforementioned defendant to take home the voters who had already finished voting. From the polling station to the place where, according to said witnesses, the defendant was when the Exhibit revolver was taken from him, there is a distance of 27 meters.
  • Appellant's attorney makes the following assignments of error:
    • The Court a quo erred in declaring that the appellant was surprised with his revolver inside the fence of the school house in the Barrio de Aranguel, Municipality of Pilar, which was set up as an electoral college.
    • The Court a quo erroneous in declaring the appellant guilty of the infraction of the disputed Electoral Law and, consequently, in sentencing him to prison and a fine.

Issue

  • Whether or not the defendant is liable even without criminal intent to intimidate voters.

Held

  • Yes. The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with which he violated it is immaterial. The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete. The intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election is not made an essential element of the offense. The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be criminal intent, but in those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. “Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. …”
  • The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. …"
  • ==This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Braulio Bejasa in the Court of First Instance of Capiz, finding the defendant guilty of a violation of section 416 of the Election Law and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of P50, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.==

US vs Go Chico

Facts

  • On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, the appellant Go Chico displayed in one of the windows and one of the show cases of his store a number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon the faces of which were imprinted in miniature the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo.
  • On the day in question, the 4th of August aforesaid, the appellant was arranging his stock of goods for the purpose of displaying them to the public and in so doing placed in his showcase and in one of the windows of his store the medallions described.
  • The appellant was ignorant of the existence of a law against the display of the medallions in question and had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts above stated are admitted.
  • The appellant rests his right to acquittal upon two propositions:
    • First. That before a conviction under the law cited can be had, a criminal intent upon the part of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Second. That the prohibition of the law is directed against the use of the identical banners, devices, or emblems actually used during the Philippine insurrection by those in armed rebellion against the United States.

Issue

  • W.O.N. criminal intent is necessary in crimes punishable by special laws.

Held

  • In the opinion of this court it is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with the criminal intent. %%In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial.%% This is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would be substantially worthless.
  • The case at bar is a perfect illustration of this. The display of a flag or emblem used particularly within a recent period, by the enemies of the Government tends to incite resistance to governmental functions and insurrection against governmental authority just as effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made with the most corrupt intent. %%The display itself, without the intervention of any other factor, is the evil.%%
  • ==The defendant is charged with the violation of section 1 of Act No. 1696 of the Philippine Commission.==

Garcia vs C.A and The People

Facts

  • The petitioner was the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Alaminos, Pangasinan.
  • She was found guilty by the trial court of the crime defined under Sec. 27 of the Electoral Reform Law of 1987 in relation to the Omnibus Election Code for decreasing the votes of Senator Pimentel by 5,034 votes.
  • On appeal, petitioner contended that there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private complainant.
  • Respondent contends that good faith is not a defense in the violation of an election law, which falls under the class of mala prohibita.

Issue

  • W.O.N petitioner is criminally liable despite the lack of motive on her part to reduce the votes of the private complainant.
  • W.O.N good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?

Held

  • Clearly, %%the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable.%% Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to happen.
  • It could not be the intent of the law to punish unintentional election canvass errors. However, %%intentionally increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice and intent to injure another.%%
  • ==The instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner’s conviction but increasing the minimum penalty in her sentence to one year instead of six months is AFFIRMED.==
  • When the doing of an act is prohibited by special laws, it is considered that the act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
  • As a rule, when an acts are inherently immoral, they are mala in se, even if punished under special laws.

Intent vs Motive

  • Motive - is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result.
  • Intent - Is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
  • %%General Rule:%%
    • %%Motive is not an essential element of a crime, and, hence, need not be proved for purpose of conviction.%%
  • Motive is generally established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense. Such deeds or words may indicate the motive.
  • Proof of motive

Motive, when relevant and when need not be established

  1. IDENTITY OF ACCUSED

    1. %%General Rule:%%

      %%Proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of identification is convincing.%%

    2. ==Where the identity of the person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute, the motive that may have impelled its commission is very relevant.==

  2. ANTAGONISTIC THEORIES

    Motive is important in ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of the offense.

  3. NO EYEWITNESSES

    1. Where there are no eyewitness to the crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons, motive is relevant and significant.

  4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

    1. Circumstantial Evidence - evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime.

    2. Sufficient Evidence -  evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief, taking into consideration all relevant factors and circumstances, that it is more likely than not that the Respondent has engaged in a Sanctionable Practice.

    3. %%If evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is essential. Proof of motive is not indispensable where guilt is otherwise established by sufficient evidence.%%