Photo from Pexels | RDNE Stock project
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, the intent to kill may still be appreciated even if the actual victims are different from the intended victims, either because of mistake in the person of the victim (error in personae) or mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus).
In the case of People v. Bendecio, G.R. No. 235016, September 8, 2020, the Supreme Court held that under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
Accordingly, in Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 216642, September 8, 2020, the author of the felony shall be criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof, whether intended or not. For Article 4 of the RPC to apply, it must be shown, however, (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
In People v. Gemoya, G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000, the Supreme Court held that error in personae or aberratio ictus is neither exempting nor mitigating.
Praeter intentionem on the other hand, refers to the cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act. It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. In such a case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
Article 49 of the RPC provides for the penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. It provides that:
- 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.
- If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
- 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.
Related Articles:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.