II.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A. FELONY DEFINED (Article 3, RPC) A felony is an act or omission punishable by law. Under Article 3 of
the Revised Penal Code, felonies can be committed either by dolo (intent or malice) or culpa (fault, or
criminal negligence). This provision underpins the foundation of criminal liability in the Philippines—
someone can only be held liable if their act or failure to act is defined and penalized by law.
B. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY To be criminally liable, the following elements must be present:
1. Physical Element (Actus Reus) This refers to the external or overt act. There must be a conduct
or omission that breaches the law.
a. Act – A voluntary deed, such as striking someone. b. Omission – A failure to act when there is a legal
duty to do so.
Cases:
People v. Sylvestre and Atienza (G.R. No. 35748, 14 December 1931) Two police officers failed
to help a man being fatally stabbed. The Supreme Court ruled their inaction was criminally
punishable due to their legal duty as public officers to prevent crime.
People v. Talingdan (L-32126, 6 July 1978) A municipal mayor failed to perform his duties,
resulting in criminal liability. The case reinforced that omission can lead to criminal charges if
there is a legal obligation to act.
2. Mental Element (Mens Rea) This refers to the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
a. Deliberate Intent (Dolo) An act is done with conscious intent to do something wrong.
Case: Manuel v. People (G.R. No. 165842, 29 November 2005) The Court clarified that dolo requires
freedom, intelligence, and intent. Without these, criminal liability may not attach.
i. Elements of Dolo:
Freedom to act
Intelligence or capacity to understand the act
Intent or malice
ii. General vs. Specific Intent:
General intent is the intention to do the act.
Specific intent is the intention to cause a specific result.
Cases:
People v. Puno (G.R. No. 97471, 17 February 1993) Distinguished general and specific intent.
People v. Delim (G.R. No. 142773, 28 January 2003) Clarified that stabbing a victim multiple
times shows clear intent to kill (specific intent).
iii. Mistake of Fact A person cannot be held criminally liable if they commit an act under a genuine,
honest mistake of fact that, if true, would have made the act lawful.
Cases:
US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. 5272, 19 March 1910) A cook killed someone he thought was a thief
entering his room. The Court held there was no criminal liability due to mistake of fact.
People v. Oanis (G.R. No. 47722, 27 July 1943) Policemen mistakenly killed an innocent man,
believing he was a fugitive. The mistake was not excusable since they had time to verify his
identity.
iv. Malum Prohibitum as Exception Malum prohibitum acts are crimes only because they are prohibited
by law, and do not require intent.
Cases:
Padilla v. Dizon (AC No. 3086, 23 February 1988)
Magno v. CA (G.R. No. 96132, 26 June 1992)
Garcia v. CA (G.R. No. 157171, 14 March 2006) These cases highlight that in crimes punishable
under special laws (malum prohibitum), the prosecution need not prove criminal intent.
v. Intent vs. Motive
Intent is the will to do the act.
Motive is the reason for doing the act. Intent is essential to criminal liability, whereas motive
becomes relevant only to determine the identity of the accused.
b. Constructive Intent (Culpa) Negligence or imprudence that leads to criminal liability even without
intent.
Elements:
Lack of intent to cause harm
Harm resulted from lack of foresight or skill
Cases:
People v. Pugay (L-74324, 17 November 1988) A man lit another person on fire during a prank.
The act was deemed reckless imprudence.
Ivler v. San Pedro (G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010) Ivler's reckless driving resulted in
death. The Court ruled he was criminally liable for reckless imprudence.
Transferred Intent (Article 4, par. 1) When a wrongful act affects a person other than the intended
target, criminal liability still attaches.
i. Aberratio Ictus – Mistake in the blow (intended victim missed). Case: People v. Guillen (L-1477, 18
January 1950) A bomb intended for President Roxas killed others. Guillen was still held liable for those
deaths.
ii. Error in Personae – Mistake in identity of the victim. Case: People v. Sabalones (G.R. No. 123485, 31
August 1998) Accused killed the wrong person but was still liable due to mistaken identity.
iii. Praeter Intentionem – Harm graver than intended. Case: People v. Albuquerque (G.R. No. 38773, 19
December 1933) The Court ruled that a person who unintentionally causes more serious harm than
intended is still liable, though possibly for a lesser offense.
3. Concurrence There must be both a guilty mind (mens rea) and a guilty act (actus reus) present
for liability to attach.
4. Resulting Harm The act must produce injury or harm that the law seeks to prevent.
5. Causation There must be a direct link between the act and the resulting harm.
Cases:
Bataclan v. Medina (L-10126, 22 October 1957) A bus company was held liable when its
negligence caused death and injury.
People v. Iligan (G.R. No. 75369, 26 November 1990) Established causal connection between
the accused’s act and the victim’s death.
Urbano v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 72964, 7 January 1988) Clarified causation
when multiple actors contribute to a crime.
B. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES (Article 4, par. 2) An impossible crime occurs when a person performs an act
intending to commit a crime, but the crime is not accomplished due to factual or legal impossibility.
Cases:
Intod v. CA (G.R. No. 103119, 21 October 1992) Accused shot at a victim’s bed, intending to kill,
but the victim was not there. It was ruled an impossible crime.
People v. Saladino (L-3634, 30 May 1951) Attempted theft from an empty drawer was still an
impossible crime.
Jacinto v. People (G.R. No. 162540, 13 July 2009) Accused tried to steal property that wasn’t
actually valuable. It still qualified as an impossible crime due to criminal intent.
