- Which literally means, that Dolo, has criminal intent, and culpa has

the act is inherently evil or criminal negligence.

bad or per se wrongful.
- These are punishable by our Criminal Intent has 2 categories:
RPC. 1) General Criminal Intent: presumed
- The intent is crucial. from the mere doing of a wrong act.
This does not require proof.
Mala prohibita(um):
- These are violations of special
2) Special Criminal Intent: not presumed
laws. because it is an ingredient or element
- Example is possession of drugs of a crime, like intent to kill in the
crimes of attempted or frustrated
(punishable by Special Laws),
homicide /parricide /murder. The
ito yung kahit hindi mo
prosecution has the burden of proving
gagamitin or ibebenta, the
the same.
mere fact na nasa pagmamay-
ari mo ito, bawal pa rin!
May a crime be committed without criminal
intent?
Felony: these are acts or omissions as defined
Yes. It is not necessary between these areas:
by Article 3 of the RPC. They may be
1) When the crime was committed was a
differentiated by dolo (deceit) which is
product of culpa or negligence, reckless
intentional, and culpa (fault) which is
imprudence, lack of foresight or skill;
imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or
2) When the crime is a prohibited act
foresight.
under a special law or what is called
mala prohibita(um)
Offense: are crimes punished under a special
law is called as statutory offense.
Distinction between intent and discernment:
Intent is the determination to do a certain
Misdemeanor: a minor infraction of the law,
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. On the
such as a violation of an ordinance, is referred
other hand, discernment is the mental capacity
to as a misdemeanor.
to tell right from wrong.
Crime: whether the wrongdoing is punished
Distinction between intent and motive:
under the Revised Penal Code or under a special
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a particular
law, the generic word crime can be used.
means to bring about a desired result – it is not
a state of mind or a reason for committing a
Mistake of Fact:
crime. On the other hand, motive implies
When the offender acted out of a mistake of
motion. It is the moving power which impels
fact, criminal intent is negated, so do not
one to do an act.
presume that the act was done with criminal
intent. This is absolutory if crime involved dolo.
Distinction between negligence and
imprudence:
Dolo has three requisites:
(1) In negligence, there is deficiency of
action;
1) Criminal Intent
2) Freedom of action
(2) In imprudence, there is
3) Intelligence
deficiency of perception.
Culpa has three requisites as well:
Criminal Liability:
This shall be incurred upon the person on the
1) criminal negligence on the part of the
act of a crime (gumawa ng krimen), whether:
offender , that is, the crime was the
result of negligence, reckless
Error in personae – mistake in identity (wrong
imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
person) Ex. A wanted to kill B, but kill C
skill;
instead, this is considered as mistake in
2) freedom of action on the part of the
identity.
offender, that is, he was not acting
Abberatio ictus – mistake in blow (wrong shot;
under duress; and
bullet went the other way etc.) Ex. A shot B,
3) Intelligence on the part of the offender
but instead, the bullet ricocheted (bounced off)
in performing the negligent act.
from the wall and hit C. (best example from CSI:
Las Vegas where a guy in avoiding an incoming
Distinction between Dolo and Culpa: