Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia legis non excusat) A misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury

y to another No criminal intent Would only be relevant when the felony would have been intentional or through dolo but not when the felony is the result of culpa A defense in intentional felony but never in culpable felony Elements: 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be. 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful. 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Effect: no criminal liability Example: A was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, 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 someone trying to open the door. He called out twice, Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, If you enter the room I will kill you. But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, and believing that he was being attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Held: He must be acquitted because of mistake of fact. (US vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488) Caveat: this material is not mine

Aberration Ictus (Mistake in the blow) the offended person is not the intended victim the accused delivers the blow at the intended victim but because of poor, aim the blow landed on somebody else the intended victim is also at the scene of the crime considered a complex crime unless the resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony Effect: If complex crime, the penalty of the more serious crime shall be imposed (Art. 48, RPC)

Error in Personae (Mistake in the identity) the offended person is not the intended victim the accused actually hit the person whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the intended victim Effect: mitigating only if the crime committed is different from that which was intended

Praeter Intentionem (the injurious result is greater than that intended) the offended party is the intended victim the consequences went beyond that intended or expected if the resulting felony can be foreseen or anticipated from the means employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem does not apply. Effect: mitigating only if there is notable or notorious disparity between the means employed and the felony which resulted

Example: 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. 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 C is concerned, if C was killed, the crime is homicide. If C was only wounded, the crime is only serious physical injury. There can be no frustrated or attempted Homicide or Murder as far as C is concerned because there is no intent to kill.

Example: 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. Art. 49, RPC will apply because out of a mistake in identity, a crime was committed different from that which was intended.

Example: A and B quarreled and they had fist blows. A started to run away and B 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, then died. Although B claimed that he had no intention of killing A (victim), his (B) claim is useless. Intent to kill is only relevant when the victim did not die. Although B was convicted for homicide for the death of A, B was given the benefit of paragraph 3 of Article 13, RPC, that is that the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.