BOOK NOTES/REVIEW

Proximate Legal Cause

The acting first and producing an injury, either immediately or setting up other events in motion, all constituting to a
natural and continuous chain of events, each having causal connection with its immediate predecessor.

Cause and effect relationship is not altered or changed because of pre-existing conditions:

1. Pathological condition of the victim

2. Predisposition of the offended party (Susceptibility, Victim unable to swim, victim addiction to alcohol)
3. Concurrent or concomitant condition (Negligence or fault of doctors, Delay of medical txt)
4. Conditions supervening the felony (tetanus, pulmonary infection, gangrene)

The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim is his act caused, accelerated, or contributed.

A person committing a felony is responsible for ALL the NATURAL and LOGICAL Consequences resulting from it
although the unlawful act performed is different from what he intended to.

When death is presumed to be the natural consequences of physical injury inflicted:

1. The victim is in normal health at time of physical injuries.

2. Death may be expected from the physical injury inflicted.
3. The death ensued within reasonable time.

People vs Tammang CA 44 OG 2287

- Injury caused by the teacher of Jundam leads to his death with no intervening cause. The teacher is liable for
homicide. *if the defense claimed that the boy died of hydrophobia that would have constituted an intervening cause
and he would have been acquitted.

Not proximate cause:

1. There’s an active force that intervened bet the felony committed and the resulting injury.
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

Not Direct, Natural, and Logical Consequences

If the consequences produced have resulted from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act, the
offense is not responsible for such consequences.

People v Rockwell, 39 Mich. 503

A person struck another with his fist and knocked him down and a horse near them jumped upon him and killed him,
the assailant was not responsible for the death of that other person.

Not Direct, Natural, and Logical Consequences / Not Proximity Cause

1. Us v De Los Santos GR No. 13309

A inflicted physical Injury to B  B deliberately immersed (proximate cause) his body in a contaminated
cesspool  Injuries become infected and serious  A cannot be held liable (not proximate cause)

2. People v Palalon, 49 Phil 177

Accused struck a boy in a mouth with the back of his hand  Later, the boy died  lack of conclusive
evidence.

3. US v Embate
 Requisites for Paragraph 1, Article 4
(By any person committing a felony although the wrongful act is different from what he intended.)

1. Should be Intentional felony

IT IS NOT INTENTIONAL FELONY WHEN:

- Not punishable by the RPC
- Act is covered by Article 11 of RPC

2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural, or logical consequence of the felony committed.

PEOPLE VS OANIS
Doctrine: Error in Personae (Art. 4, Par. 1)

FACTS:
 PEOPLE VS UMAWID
Doctrine: Aberratio Ictus (Art. 4, Par. 1)

FACTS:

Accused-appellant: Roger Ringor Umawid.

Incident Details: Umawid attacked Vicente Ringor with a long bolo but missed  the attacked hit Maureen Joy Ringor, Two-year-old granddaughter of
Vicente Ringor causing her death  Umawid then attacked his nephew, Jeffrey Mercado causing severe injuries (not fatal due to timely medical intervention).

Defense: Insanity

ISSUE:

1. Conviction: Should Umawid’s conviction for murder and frustrated murder be upheld?

RULING: Yes. SC upheld Umawid’s conviction for Murder and Frustrated Murder.

2. Insanity Defense: Was the defense of insanity sufficiently proven to absolve Umawid from criminal liability?

RULING: Rejected
RATIO: Not Sufficiently proven under Article 12 of the RPC. (Testimonies did not established Umawid’s mental state at the time of the crimes.)

3. Treachery Affirmed: Was treachery appreciated as qualifying circumstance in crimes charged?

RULING: Correctly appreciated as qualifying circumstance.

RATIO: Maureen, Incapable of Defending herself; Jeffrey, despite his awareness of impending assault, is a minor

4. Aberratio Ictus
a. Intended Target: Fatal blow was delivered by mistake - Vicente but Maureen was killed
b. Complex crime: Umawid was only charged with Murder. Convicting him of a complex crime would violate his right to due process.

PEOPLE VS CAGACO
Doctrine: Praeter Intentionem (Art. 4, Par. 1)

FACTS:

Accused-appellant: Franciso Cagoco

 Is this an impossible crime? NO. A committed attempted robbery. Not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment but because of a
cause or accident other than A’s own spontaneous desistance (Art 6, Par. 2). Also, A pointing his gun at B already constituted at least a crime of grave threats under
Article 282.
 IMPOSIIBLE CRIME (Penalty provided in Article 59 – Aresto mayor or fine of 200-500 pesos)

The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the actor

REQUISITES OF IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

1. The act performed would be an offense against persons or property. (not impossible crime if act performed other than a felony against person and
property)

a. Felonies Against Persons

i. Parricide – killing of parent or other near relative (Art 246)
ii. Murder – killing not falling under Parricide (Art 248)
Attending Circumstances: Treachery; In consideration of reward; Inundation, fire, poision, explosion etc.; evident premeditation;
cruelty.
iii. Homicide – killing without any of the qualifying circumstances that would elevate it to murder (Art 249)
iv. Infanticide – killing of child less than three days of age
v. Abortion – deliberate termination of human pregnancy
vi. Duel
vii. Physical injuries
viii. Rape
b. Felonies Against Property
i. Robbery – with the intent to gain shall take personal property belonging to another without consent (Art 293) by means of violence
or intimidation
ii. Brigandage – band of robbers (more than 3 armed persons) (Art 306)
iii. Theft - with the intent to gain shall take personal property belonging to another without consent (Art 293) by without means of
violence or intimidation
iv. Usurpation – by means of violence, shall take possession of any real property or right in property belonging to another. (Art 312)
v. Culpable Insolvency – runaway with his property to the prejudice of his creditors. (Art 314)
vi. Swindling (estafa) and other deceits (Art 315)
vii. Chattel mortgage (Art 319)
viii. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Art. 320)
ix. Malicious mischief (Art 327)

2. The act was done with Evil Intent

Example: A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he found out that B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A stabbed B in his breast
three times with a knife. Is this impossible crime?
No. A knew that B was already dead when he stabbed the lifeless body. There was no evil intent on the part of A, because he knew that he
could not cause an injury to B. Even subjectively, he was not a criminal.

3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
a. Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
There must be either LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY or PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
Physical Impossibility Example:
A fire at B who was lying on bed, not knowing, that B was dead hours before. A dead person cannot be injured or killed.

Legal Impossibility Example:

A, with an intent to gain, took a watch in his possession, he found out that it was a watch which he had lost a week before.
An employee who, having known the safe combination, opens the safe in the office for the purpose of stealing a money, but who
fins the safe empty, is guilty of impossible crime.

b. Means employed is inadequate or ineffectual

Inadequate means Example:
A, determined to poison B, uses small quantity of arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing that the quantity
employed is sufficient. But since in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.
But means employed is adequate and the result expected is no produced  Frustrated felony

Ineffectual means Example:

A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which he thought is arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B could not have been
killed because the means employed was ineffectual.
Pressed a trigger of the gun not knowing that it is empty.

4. That the act should NOT constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
Example: A, who knew that B owned and always carried a watch, decided to rob B.  A pointed his gun at him and asked for the watch  Finding that B
did not have the watch, A allowed B to go without further molestation.

US vs AH CHONG GR No. 5272

Doctrine: Ignorantia Facti Excusat (Mistake of Fact)

FACTS:

Defendant: Ah Chong, cook at “Officers’ Quarter, No. 27”, Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
 PEOPLE VS OANIS
Doctrine: Error in Personae (Art. 4, Par. 1)

FACTS:

Accused-appellant: Oanis and Galanta

Incident details: Chief of Police and his co-accuse Cororal Galanta were under instruction to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, notorious criminal and escaped
convict.  If overpowered, to get him dead or alive  Proceeds to the suspected house  They went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards
the door  Simultaneously fire at him with their revolvers (WITHOUT FIRST MAKING RESONABLE INQUIRY AS TO THE IDENTITY).  The victim turned
out to be an innocent man, Tecson.

Conviction: Reckless Imprudence by LC

ISSUE:

1. Were Oanis and Galanta criminially liable for the death of Serpio despite there honest belief that he was Anselmo Balagtas?

RULING: Yes, Oanis and Galanta were criminially Liable for the death of Serpio Tecson.
RATIONALE: It was intentional and not merely accidental.

2. Was the killing of Tecson an act of reckless imprudence or Intentional murder?

RULING: SC modified the LC decision, ruling the crime committed was MURDER, not merely reckless imprudence (but recognized as mitigating
circumstances).
RATIONALE: Appellants, with ample time, have failed to make any reasonable inquiry to verify the identity of the person they shot, who was asleep
and posed no immediate threat, which exceeded their duty by killing Tecson without any resistance.

PEOPLE VS DE FERNANDO
Doctrine: Error in Personae (Art. 4, Par. 1)

FACTS:

Defendant-appellant: Fernando De Fenando, Municipal Policemen at the time of incident.

Incident details: Prior to Incident, several Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal Colony of San Ramon, Zamboanga  The residents of the barrio of