Impossible Crime - PDF

Impossible Crime – a Formal Crime By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not consummated at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. (2005 BAR) Impossible Crime vs. U...

Impossible Crime – a Formal Crime By its very nature, an impossible crime is a formal crime. It is either consummated or not consummated at all. There is therefore no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. (2005 BAR) Impossible Crime vs. Unconsummated Felonies (Attempted or Frustrated Felony) UNCONSUMMATED FELONIES IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Intent is not accomplished. As to Possibility of Intent of the offender has possibility Intent of the offender cannot be Accomplishment of accomplishment. accomplished. As to Reason for Accomplishment is prevented by the Intent cannot be accomplished because Non-Accomplishment intervention of a certain cause or it is inherently impossible to accomplish accident in which the offender had or because the means employed by the no part. offender is ineffectual or inadequate Mala Per Se (Mala In Se) vs. Mala Prohibita Mala Per Se (Mala In Se) Mala Prohibita As to their concepts There must be criminal intent It is sufficient that the prohibited act was done Wrong from its very nature Wrong merely because it is prohibited by statute Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not necessary Generally, it is punishable under the Generally, it is punishable under special RPC laws NOTE: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se, and, therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent are valid defenses unless they are the products of criminal negligence or culpa. As to Attending Mitigating and aggravating Such circumstances are not appreciated Circumstances circumstances are appreciated in unless the special law has adopted the imposing the penalties scheme or scale of penalties under the RPC As to Legal Implication Valid defenses: Not valid defenses: (1) Good faith; (1) Good faith; or (2) Lack of criminal intent; or (2) Lack of criminal intent. (3) Negligence. It is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated As to Criminal Liability Criminal liability is incurred even Criminal liability is generally incurred when the crime is attempted or only when the crime is frustrated consummated As to Degree of Participation The penalty is computed on the The penalty of the offender is the same basis of whether he is a principal as they are all deemed principals. offender, accomplice, or accessory. NOTE: The crime of technical malversation is punished under Art. 220 of the RPC, was held to be a crime that is malum prohibitum. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public purpose for another public purpose. The prohibited act is not inherently immoral, but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission on considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent are not valid defenses. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 Nov. 2012) Violations of Special Laws which are Considered Mala in Se The following examples of violations under special penal laws are considered mala in se: 1. Piracy in Philippine waters (P.D. 532);  2. Brigandage in the highways (P.D. 532); and 3. Plunder (R.A. No. 7080). NOTE: When the special laws require that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability may arise. Effect on the Nature of the Crime when covered by Special Law and it Uses the Nomenclature of Penalties in the RPC Even if a special law uses the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, that alone will not make the act or omission a crime mala in se. The special law may only intend for the Code to apply as supplementary to the special law. (People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat vs. Ignorantia Facti Excusat Mistake of Fact The misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who caused injury to another. He is not, however, criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent. It is necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, the act is justified. Moreover, the offender must believe that he is performing a lawful act. An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act. NOTE: Mistake of fact is a defense only in intentional felonies. Requisites of Mistake of Fact 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be; 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act is lawful; and 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. ABBERATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, AND PRAETER INTENTIONEM Causes which May Produce a Result Different From that which the Offender Intended (2019 BAR) 1. Mistake in Blow (aberratio ictus) – A person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim and the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime. Example: A was aiming to shoot B, but because of lack of precision, hit C instead. (1993, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2015, 2018 BAR) NOTE: There are three persons involved: (1) the offender; (2) the intended victim; and (3) the actual victim. EFFECT: There are two crimes committed: a. Against the intended victim: attempted stage of the felony; b. Against the actual victim: the consummated or frustrated felony, as the case may be. NOTE: It may give rise to a complex crime under Art. 48 since it results from a single act. 2. Mistake in Identity (error in personae) – The offender intends the injury on one person, but the harm fell on another. In this situation, the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. Example: A, wanting to kill B, killed C instead. (2003, 2015, 2017 BAR) NOTE: There are only two (2) persons involved: (1) the actual but unintended victim; and (2) the offender. EFFECT: Art. 49 of RPC. It depends when the intended crime and the crime actually committed are punished with different penalties. (Reyes, 2017) If punished with the same penalties: No effect. GR: If punished with different penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 49(1) and (2), RPC) NOTE: It becomes a mitigating circumstance. XPN: If the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime. If the attempted or frustrated crime has a higher penalty, that penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period. (Art. 49 (3), RPC) 3. Injurious consequences are greater than that intended (praeter intentionem) – The injury is on the intended victim, but the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It is essential that there is a notable disparity between the means employed or the act of the offender and the felony which resulted. This means that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen from the acts of the offender.  Example: A, without intent to kill, struck the victim on the back causing the victim to fall and hit his head on the pavement. (2020-21 BAR) EFFECT: Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly covered by Art. 13(3) of the RPC. NOTE: The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out of criminal negligence. ABERRATIO ICTUS ERROR IN PERSONAE HOW IT IS COMMITTED A person directed the blow at an The victim actually received the intended victim, but because of poor blow, but he was mistaken for aim, that blow landed on somebody another who was not at the scene else. PARTIES PRESENT The offender, the offended vicrtim, There are only two persons present as well as the actual – the actual (not the victim are all at the scene of the intended victim) and the offender. crime. ARTICLE 5: DUTY OF THE COURT Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. ACTS TO BE REPRESSED - "In connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law." The 1st paragraph of this article which contemplates a trial of a criminal case requires the following: 1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law; 2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act; 3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused; 4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation. Basis of paragraph 1, Article 5. The provision contained in paragraph 1 of Article 5 is based on the legal maxim "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, that there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act. EXCUTIVE CLEMENCY - "In cases of excessive penalties." The second paragraph of Article 5 requires that - 1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty. 2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive, because - A. the accused acted with lesser degree of malice, and/ or; B. there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity. C. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence. D. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency. NOTE: In cases where the violation is of a special law, the Court is not precluded from giving RPC suppletory application in light of Article 10 of the same code and in a ruling in People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 574. ARTICLE 6: Stages of Execution Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. – Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.  A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. Stages in Committing a Crime 1. Internal Acts – mere ideas in the mind of a person are not punishable. Had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. 2. External Acts – include: (a) preparatory acts; and (b) acts of execution. a. Preparatory Acts – those that do not have a direct connection with the crime which the offender intends to commit GR: These are ordinarily not punishable. XPNs: I. When expressly provided for; or II. When they are considered in themselves as independent crimes (e.g., possession of picklocks under Art. 304, which is a preparatory act to the commission of robbery under Arts. 299 and 302). b. Acts of Execution – punishable under the RPC Stages of Acts of Execution (C-F-A) 1. Consummated 2. Frustrated (1992, 1994, 2009 BAR) 3. Attempted Purpose of the Classification of Felonies To bring about a proportionate penalty and equitable punishment. NOTE: The penalties are graduated according to their degree of severity. The stages may not apply to all kinds of felonies. There are felonies which do not admit of division. Phases of Felony 1. Subjective Phase – that portion of execution of the crime starting from the point where the offender begins up to that point where he still has control over his acts. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the felony would be a mere attempt. If it already passed, but the felony is not produced, as a rule, it is frustrated. (Reyes, 2021) NOTE: If it reaches the point where he has no more control over his acts, the subjective phase has passed. 2. Objective Phase – the offender has performed until the last act and is no longer in control of its natural course. Consummated Felony A felony is consummated when all the acts necessary for its accomplishment and execution are present. (Art. 6, RPC) Frustrated Felony A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a result, but which nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6, RPC) Crimes Without Frustrated Stage 1. Rape – the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, the slightest penetration to the female organ consummates the felony. 2. Corruption of public officers – mere offer consummates the crime. 3. Physical injury – consummated at the instance the injuries are inflicted. (2017 BAR) 4. Adultery – the essence of the crime is sexual congress. 5. Theft – the essence of the crime is the taking of property belonging to another. Once the thing has been taken, or in the possession of another, the crime is consummated. (2014 BAR) Attempted Felony There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony, by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. (Art. 6, RPC) NOTE: The word directly emphasizes the requirement that the attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the overt act performed by the offender, not the felony he has in his mind. ATTEMPTED FELONY FRUSTRATED FELONY Offender has not accomplished his criminal purpose. As to Performance of All the Acts Only commenced the commission of Has performed all the acts of of Execution an act directly by overt acts but did execution not perform all the acts of execution As to Phase The offender has not passed the The offender has reached the subjective phase objective phase Overt Acts Some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. (Reyes, 2021) Indeterminate Offense It is where the purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature and relation to its objective is ambiguous. (Reyes, 2021) Criteria Involved in Determining the Stage (whether it be in attempted, frustrated or consummated stage) of the Commission of a Felony (M-E-N) 1. The Manner of committing the crime; 2. The Elements of the crime; and 3. The Nature of the crime itself. Instances wherein the Stages of a Crime will NOT apply 1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless otherwise provided for; 2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, false testimony, etc.); 3. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act(e.g., attempt to flee to an enemy country, corruption of minors, treason); 4. Felonies by omission; and 5. Crimes committed by mere agreement (e.g., betting in sports, corruption of public officers). 6. Material crimes: i. Attempted and Consummated Rape ii. Consummated Homcide iii. Frustrated Murder iv. Attempted Murder