When crime committed different from that intended
The penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended is under Article 49 of the Revised Penal Code,
which reads:
Jurisprudence instructs that such provision should only apply where the
crime committed is different from that intended
and where the felony committed befalls a
different person (error in
personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by
the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem) (People v.
Tomotorgo, 220 Phil. 617, 623 [1985]). It is well-settled that if the victim
dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed (Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, 122677,
and 122676, June 25, 2012, 674 SCRA 420, 461, citing People v. Delim, 444
Phil. 430, 450 [2003]). In such 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.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed.
1. 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.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. 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 attempt or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in the maximum period.
Jurisprudence instructs that such provision should only apply where the
crime committed is different from that intended
and where the felony committed befalls a
different person (error in
personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by
the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem) (People v.
Tomotorgo, 220 Phil. 617, 623 [1985]). It is well-settled that if the victim
dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed (Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, 122677,
and 122676, June 25, 2012, 674 SCRA 420, 461, citing People v. Delim, 444
Phil. 430, 450 [2003]). In such 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.
