4. Aberratio Ictus; Error In Personae; Praeter Intentionem

Aberratio Ictus, Error In Personae, and Praeter Intentionem

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

• By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended;

"Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended"

The causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended are:

• Mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another; and
• Mistake in the identity of the victim;
• The act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended. (Id)

ABERRATIO ICTUS

In aberratio ictus or error in the victim of the blow, the offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another.

There are three persons involved: the offender, the intended victim, and the actual victim.

Consequently, the act may result in a complex crime (Art. 48, RPC) or in two felonies, although there is just a single intent. Thus, aberratio ictus may result to a greater criminal liability to the offender. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law)

A person is criminally responsible for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences therefrom although the actual victim is different from the intended victim. (People vs. Cornel, 78 Phil. 458, 261)

Even though there is intent to kill the target victim, the court should still make an assessment if there is intent to kill the third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus. If the third person died, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. Hence, the crime committed against the third person, is homicide or murder. (People vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 205228)

Example: A fired his gun at his father, with intent to kill him, but he missed and hit C, killing the latter. In this case, two crimes were actually committed: (1) homicide, of which C was the victim; and (2) attempted parricide, of which A's father was the offended party. One who fires a gun at his father with intent to kill is guilty of attempted parricide, even if the latter is not injured at all. The two crimes actually committed were the result of a single act; hence, A committed a complex crime of consummated homicide with attempted parricide. There being a complex crime, Art. 48, not Art. 49, is applicable. (Reyes, Book I)

ERROR IN PERSONAE

Error in personae or mistake in identity involves only one offended party but the offender committed a mistake in ascertaining the identity of the victim. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law)

A person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from the intended victim due to mistake of identity. (2019 Bar Exams)

Error in personae carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. (People vs. Pinto, G.R. No. 39519)

Example: A, thinking that the person walking in a dark alley was B, a stranger, fired at that person, who was killed as a result. It turned out that person was C, the father of A. In this case, the crime actually committed is parricide, punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The crime which A intended to commit is homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. In view of rule No. 1 provided for in Art. 49, the penalty for homicide shall be imposed in its maximum period.

But suppose that A wanted to kill his father and waited for the latter in a dark alley where he used to pass in going home; when A saw a person coming and thinking that he was his father, A shot him; and it turned out that that person was a stranger. In this case, A should be punished with the penalty for homicide to be applied in its maximum period.

In either case, the lesser penalty is always to be imposed, only that it shall be imposed in the maximum period. (Reyes, Book I)

Elements:

• That the offender directs an attack at an intended victim; and
• That the blow strikes another person instead.

Mistake of Fact vs. Error in Personae

PRAETER INTENTIONEM (INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED)

PRAETER INTENTIONEM

In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequence is much more grave than intended. (Boado, Compact Reviewer in Criminal Law)

It is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3). But if the means employed in the commission of the crime would logically and naturally bring about the actual felony committed, praeter intentionem will not be appreciated. (Id)

It does not apply to culpa. “Intentionem” denotes intent. (Id)

The mitigating circumstances of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated where the accused had no intent to kill but only to inflict injuries when he attacked the victim. (Id)

Example: A, without intent to kill, boxed B from behind on the back part of the latter's head. B fell to the cement pavement with his head striking it. B died due to the fracture of the skull. In this case, the death of B was not intended by A. (Reyes, Book I)

Effects to Criminal Liability

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING:

• Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus;
• Mistake in the identity;
• Entrapment;
• Accused is over 18 years of age; and
• Performance of righteous action.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Ordinary aggravating circumstances affect the period of the prescribed penalty under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code; qualifying aggravating circumstances change the classification of the offense when properly alleged and proved under Rule 110, Sections 8–9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating

Evident premeditation may not be properly taken into account when the person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became his victim. (People vs. Hilario, et al., G.R. No. 128083)

Treachery should be considered even if:

• The accused did not select a particular victim but intended to kill, by treacherous means, the first two persons encountered from a specified class. The same rule applies to evident premeditation.
• In aberratio ictus, the bullet struck someone other than its intended target. The rule on evident premeditation is different.
• In error in personae, the accused killed a person other than the one intended. The rule on evident premeditation is different.

Reason: Neither the intended victim nor the person actually struck could defend against the attack.

Treachery absorbs:

• Abuse of superior strength;
• Craft;
• Use of means to weaken the defense;
• Cuadrilla, or band;
• Aid of armed men; and
• Nighttime.

Note: Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation.