Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Article 49 applies. Where the crime intended is more serious than the crime committed, the error
in persona is not a mitigating circumstance
2. Mistake in blow hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or fortuitous
instances (this is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C were walking together. A
wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.
1. By any person committing a felony, although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim,
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that the act done is the proximate cause of the resulting
that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual
felony. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
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.
1. Mistake in identity of the victim injuring one person who is mistaken for another (this
is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C
3. Injurious result is greater than that intended causing injury graver than intended or
expected (this is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so grave a
victim upon whom the blow was directed, but he was not really the intended victim.
How does error in personae affect criminal liability of the offender?
however, that the situation may qualify as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity
between the means employed and the resulting felony
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
In all these instances the offender can still be held criminally liable, since he is motivated
by criminal intent.
Requisites:
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
Doctrine of Proximate Cause such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order
of events, and under the particular circumstances surrounding the case, which would
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account
Requisites:
2. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of a special penal law
Notes:
1. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused,
which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
1. Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended crime, a man stabbing
another who he knew was already dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
2. The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
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.
Requisite for Presumption blow was cause of the death Where there has been an injury
Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping. B was already dead. A shot
inflicted sufficient to produce death followed by the demise of the person, the
B. A is liable. If A knew that B is dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
presumption arises that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under any and all circumstances, the crime
1. victim was in normal health
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
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.
felony.
2.
corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the
Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the gun, no bullet came out
If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
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 or the frustrated crime shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
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.
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.
Art 49 has reference to the provision in the 1st par of Art 4 which provides that criminal
Art 49 applicable only in cases when there is a mistake in identity of the victim of the
crime and the penalty for the crime committed is different from that for the crime
intended to be committed.
Art 49 also has no application where a more serious consequence not intended by the
offender befalls the same person.
Example: Juan only wanted to inflict a wound upon Pedro but because he lost control of his
right arm, he killed Pedro. Art 49 not applicable.
from that intended. In cases in which the felony committed is different from that
ART 49
Lesser penalty to be imposed in its maximum
pd
which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:
Notes:
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different
1.
If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
ART 48
Penalty for the more serious crime shall be
imposed in its maximum pd
1. Art. 49 has reference to Art. 4(1). It applies only when there is error in personae.
2. In Art. 49 (Paragraphs 1 and 2) the lower penalty in its maximum period is always
imposed.
3. In Par. 3 the penalty for the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period. This rule is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in view
which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
of the fact that the same act also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.
2 cases wherein the accomplice is punished w/ the same penalty imposed upon the
principal
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible. When the person intending to commit an
offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless
the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature
one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are
a)
essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind
Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. The provisions
contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in
him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Basis for the imposition of proper penalty in impossible crimes: sopcial danger and
one who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight illegal detention.
the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon
ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who by abuse of authority or
Cases when instead of a penalty 2 degrees lower, one degree for accessory:
a)
b)
c)
d)