CRIMINAL LAW DOCTRINES
Art. 4
CASE FACTS
Art. 4.
“Where there is malice, there is no negligence”
1. People vs Guillen
2. US vs AH CHONG Defendant Ah Chong struck the fatal
blow against his roommate who he
believed was an intruder and a thief
after the latter forcible opened the
door of his sleeping room.
3. People vs BAYAMBAO Bayambao was charged with the crime
of murder. He does not deny having
caused the deceased's death. He
alleges, however, that he did it by
mistake, believing the
deceased malefactor who attacked him
in the dark; he thought the victim was
an outlaw but found out later that it
was his brother-in-law and so he shot
him before he could be killed by the
victim.
4. US vs BAUTISTA
5. CALDERON vs PEOPLE
6. US vs GUEVARRA
7. People vs PENALOSA The accused were convicted for
contracting marriage without the
(1902) consent of his or her parents. Marcosa
Peñalosa, who believed in good faith
that she was already 21, was
apparently not when she married the
codefendant, and that she contracted
the marriage without the
consent of her father.
DOCTRINES
Since evil intent is in general an
inseparable element in every crime,
any such mistake of fact as shows the
act committed to have proceeded from
no sort of evil in the mind necessarily
relieves the actor from criminal liability
provided always there is no fault or
negligence on his part.
The latter, on that occasion, acted from
the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an ill at least equal in gravity, in the
belief that the deceased was a
malefactor who attacked him with a
kampilan or dagger in hand, and for
this reason,
he was guilty of no crime and is exempt
from criminal liability (art. 8, No. 10,
Penal Code.)
Furthermore, his ignorance or error of
fact was not due to negligence or bad
faith, and this rebuts the presumption
of malicious, intent accompanying the
act of killing. In an case, this court
acquitted the accused
One cannot be convicted (under article
475) when
by reason of a mistake of fact there
does not
exist the intention to commit the
crime.
As to the codefendant, he testifies that
he had no suspicion that the woman
was a minor especially that she took an
oath before the clergyman that she
was 21. This sufficies to demonstrate
that the defendant acted under a
mistake of fact and thus he is not guilty
of violting Art. 475.