CRIM LAW 1 - If you do not sustain injury even if there was an attempt on your

life
Article 4: = Attempted Murder
*Even if no wound was inflicted upon any part of the body, but if someone
Difference between Art 3 & 4
attempted to kill you; there is still crime; there is specific stage of
- Art 3 – Means in which you commit a felony dolo and culpa
execution.
- Art 4 – Who incurs criminal liability
*Art. 48 of the RPC – penalty for complex crimes
What is embodied in Art 4?
- If there is grave or less grave felonies, at least 2 and one is
- Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
committed through one single act:
felony or delito although the wrongful act may be done differently
- proper penalty: we impose the penalty for the
from that which he intended.
consummated felony = the higher/more grave offense
Ex. Abberatio Ictus – or “mistaken blow” “poor aim”
- you impose the penalty for homicide not attempted
People of the Philippines v. Roger Umawid GR No. 208719 June 9, 2014
homicide and then you impose it in the maximum period.
- Explains how Abberatio Ictus Occurs
Facts:
Complex Crimes under Art. 48
- Umawid is intending to attack Vicente Ringor but instead he causes
- If the crimes committed against the target victim and the unintended
the death to Ringor’s granddaughter 2yr old Maureen Ringor.
victim who was hit because of Abberatio Ictus, were produced by a
o Abberation Ictus is applied to this case; it was the poor blow
single act, the accused is liable for a complex crime.
of Umawid that was intended to aim Ringor but instead hit 1. Single Act of throwing grenade
Maureen Ringor. 2. Single bullet
o Because of poor aim he hit an unintended victim. *IMPOSE PENALTY FOR A SINGLE CRIME (THE MORE SERIOUS CRIME) THE
- Started attacking Vicente with a PANABAS; Vicente was able to SAME TO BE APPLIED IN THE MAXIMUM PERIOD.
avoid umawid’s blows, instead hitting Maureen on her abdomen and
back causing her death. People of the Philippines vs. Rolly Adriano GR. No. 205228 July 15,2015
o She was used as a cover. Facts:
- 4 armed men who were on board a Toyota corolla which was
ABBERATION ICTUS “Poor - 2 crimes committed; one against chasing a CRV
Aim/Mistake in Blow” the intended victim and the other - Cabiedes was ambushed while driving a maroon Honda CRV; a
Two victims both present at the to the actual victim. bystander was struck by a stray bullet.
crime scene - Intended Victim – whom the - Adriano and Accomplices shot and killed Danilo Cabiedes and
defendant was attempting to kill Ofelia Bulanan.
Victim 1 + Victim 2 - Actual Victim – the one who Intended Victim and Actual Victim: Danilo Cabiedes (Shot several
(Intended (Actual Victim) suffered the blow/attack. times)
Victim) - The perpetrator will be liable for Bystander and Actual Victim: Ofelia Bulanan (was hit with a stray
If these 2 crimes happen to be the injury, actual injury inflicted bullet)
grave or less grave felonies, Art 48. upon actual victim and the Ruling:
of the RPC or complexity of crimes intended victim who did not suffer - Adriano was found guilty with 2 counts of murder
shall be applied. any injury. Main issue:
- That the actual victim was not the intended victim; which
What was the proper designation of the crime? How many crimes are resulted to her death.
committed? Supreme Court:
- Murder and Attempted Murder
 - The person committing the wrongful act even if he did not *Mistake of Fact was recognized because he was doing a lawful act; had
intended it; the result will be criminally liable for all the the facts been asked; Ah Chong believed them to be; he had reason to
consequence of that act. believe he was being victimized by a burglar.
*They were chasing the CRV and actually killing the victim; they were Was he reckless?
committing a felony - No, because he asked first the identity of the person before doing
- If another consequence occurs as a result of the felonies act that anything.
they were doing. According to Art 4 of RPC – criminal liability shall Was the intent lawful?
be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the - Yes, the intention was to protect himself.
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Mistake of Mistake in Mistake in the
“el que es cause de la cause del mal causado” – he who is the cause of Fact Identity Blow
the cause is the cause of the evil caused. Latin Name Ignorantia facti Erron in personae Abberatio Ictus
excusat
What is the difference between mistake in identity and mistake of fact? An exculpatory The offender When the offender
- Mistake in fact: a mistaken understanding by someone as to the facts cause for had mistakenly assumes intending to do an
Meaning the facts been that the actual ijury to one person
of a situation, the mistake results in the person committing an illegal
true to the victim is the actually inflicts it
act. belief of the intended victim. on another.
Elements: offender.
1. Act must have been lawful had the facts been as the accused Negative Penalty for lesser Penalty for graver
believed them to be Circumstance criminal liability crime in its offense in its
2. The intention must be lawful s Affecting maximum period maximum period
3. The mistake must be without fault or negligence or carelessness Criminal Art. 49 (Extenuating Art. 48
on the part of the accused. Liability Circumstances)
- Mistake in Identity: The offender mistakenly assumes that the actual There was a
victim is the intended victim. As to Count crime but no Single Crime Complex Crimes
United States v. Ah Chong GR No. L – 5272 March 19, 1910 criminal. Art 48.
- Ah Chong mistakenly thought of his roommate that he was an intruder; Persons One Subject One Subject At least two
Involved Subjects
he got a kitchen knife and struck the victim thinking his roommate
The intended
Pascual as an intruder.
No criminal A has intent to kill subject is a
How did the Supreme Court appreciate ‘Mistake of Fact’ in this case? Intent Intent B, but kills C different subject,
What is the Context? but the felony is
- Ah Chong is a scaredy – cat (Cook); Pedro Pascual (Houseboy) still the same.
- He was scared because there were a series of robberies Criminal No criminal Has criminal liability Has criminal
happening in their community. Liability liability liability
- They used a chair against the door as a lock. Landmark US v. Ah Chong US v. Ah Chong People v. Roger
- Before attacking Ah Chong was asking who the person was; the Case Umawid
person was not answering Mistake of fact Of the same gravity May result in a
- The person forced the door open and the chair went flying. Exceptions/ is relevant or severity, the greater criminal
What did Ah Chong do? Notes ONLY in dolo penalty is not liability
- Ah Chong stabbed the person after he saw his roommate Pascual mitigated.
- Pascual died the next day