I.
FELONIES
Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides -
“Act and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).”
Felonies, therefore, are acts or omissions punishable by the
Revised Penal Code.
Offense – a crime punished under a special law.
Misdemeanor – a minor infraction of the law, such as violation of
an ordinance.
Although felony and offense have distinctive definition,
crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code are also
referred to as offenses.
A. Elements of felonies, in general are:
1. That there must be an act or omission;
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by
the Revised Penal Code;
3. That the act is performed or the omission is
incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
Act - any bodily movement tending to produce some effects
in the external world.
- But the act must be one which is defined by the Revised
Penal Code as constituting a felony, or at least, an overt act
of that felony.
- must be external because internal acts are beyond the reach
of penal law
- A criminal thought or mere intention, no matter how immoral
or improper it may be, will never constitute a felony.
Thus, even if A entertains the idea of killing B, as long as he
does not commence the commission of the crime directly by
overt act, A is not criminally liable.
a. Internal Acts = such as mere ideas in the mind of
person are not punishable.
b. External Acts, covers:
Preparatory act = ordinarily not punished except when
considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art 304,
Possession of picklock and similar tools as preparatory acts to an
intended robbery).
Acts of Execution = punishable under the Revised Penal
Code
Omission - inaction
- The failure to perform a duty which one is bound to do as
required by law. There must be a law requiring the doing or
performance of an act.
Example of a felony by “omission:
1. Failure to render assistance to any person whom he finds in
an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, makes
him liable for the crime of abandonment of person in danger
(Art. 275).
2. An officer entrusted for the collection of taxes who
voluntarily fails to issue a receipt as provided by law,
commits the crime of illegal exaction (Art. 123).
Dolo vs. Culpa
Art. 3 classifies felonies according to the means by which
they are committed, into (1) intentional felony and (2) culpable
(unintentional) felony.
“Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa).
Dolo (deceit) - when the act is performed with deliberate
intent;
Culpa (fault) when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.”
The elements of Dolo or intentional felony are -
a) Freedom,
b) Intelligence, and
c) Criminal Intent
Freedom. When a person acts without freedom, he is no
longer a human being but merely a tool; his liability is as much as
the knife that wounds; or of a torch that sets fire.
Intelligence. Without this power, necessary to determine
the morality of human acts, no crime can exist. Thus, an imbecile
or the insane person or minors fifteen years old and below have
no criminal liability because they acted without intelligence.
Intent. criminal intent corresponds to the mens rea, that is
the mental state required by law as an element of a crime.
Criminal intent is revealed by the overt act of the offender
(People vs. Mabug-at, 51 Phil. 967), and it is presumed from the
commission of an unlawful act.
In culpable felonies, criminal intent is replaced by
negligence and imprudence. The mind of the accused is not
criminal, however, his act is wrongful, because the injury or
damage caused to the injured party results from the imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skills of the accused.
B. The elements of culpable or unintentional
felony are:
a) Freedom,
b) Intelligence, and
c) Imprudence, Negligence or lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
Motive vs. Intent
Motive is the reason why the accused committed the acts
complained of and criminal intent is his purpose for adopting the
particular means to achieve his objective.
Motive is not an element of a crime but the absence of
evidence of motive may disclose a weakness in the prosecution.
On the other hand, since motive may supply the desired judicial
perspective in a given case, proof of motive is relevant in the
following instances:
a) Where the identity of the assailant is in question;
b) To determine the voluntariness of the criminal act or the
sanity of the accused;
c) To determine from which side the unlawful aggression
commenced, as where the accused invoked self-defense,
hence, unlawful aggression by his opponent is an
essential element.
d) To determine whether a shooting was intentional or
accidental, since the fact that the accused had personal
motives to shoot the victim is logically a weighty
consideration.
e) Where the accused contends that he acted in defense of
a stranger, it is required that the accused was not induced
by revenge, resentment or other evil motive; and,
f) To determine the specific nature of the crime, such as,
whether a murder was committed by the accused in the
furtherance of rebellion, in which case the latter absorbs
the former, or whether ha had his own personal and
independent motives, in which case murder and rebellion
would constitute separate offenses.
Mala in se vs. Mala prohibita
Felonies may be mala in se or mala prohibita.
Malum in se is a wrong in itself involving as it does an
illegality from its very nature. The acts or omission penalized are
inherently evil.
A malum prohibitum, on the other hand, involves an act
which is wrong only because it is prohibited. It is not inherently
immoral but becomes wrong only because its commission is
expressly prohibited by law on consideration of public policy,
order and convenience. The act penalized is not inherently wrong,
it is wrong only because a law punishes the same.
The conventional distinction between them are as follows:
a) Mala in se require criminal intent while in mala prohibita,
the mere commission of the prohibited act, regardless of intent, is
sufficient; and,
b) Mala in se refers generally to felonies covered by the
Revised Penal Code whereas mala prohibita refer generally to
acts punished by special laws.
Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to
as malum in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently
evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other hand, violations of
special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.
However, not all violations of special laws are mala
prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does
not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are
always 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 the lack
of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of
criminal negligence or culpa.
Likewise when the special law requires that the punished act
be committed knowingly and willfully, criminal intent is required
to be proved before criminal liability may arise.