Dear PAO,

My daughter was hit by a bullet when the accused gunman failed to hit his supposed original victim due to poor aim. Fortunately, my daughter did not sustain a mortal wound, and she survived. Be that as it may, we hope to be certain if the police officers are correct in saying that the crime is only a form of criminal negligence or reckless imprudence since my daughter was not the intended victim and was hit only by accident?

To repeat, the above-mentioned statement from the police was uttered despite pieces of evidence showing the gunman's intent to kill his original victim.

Marcelo

Dear Marcelo,

The answer to your question is found in the provisions of Act 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, and pertinent jurisprudence. Succinctly, Article 4 of the aforementioned law reads:

'Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

'1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.' x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the fairly recent case of People v. Bendecio (GR 235016, Sept. 8, 2020) penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court reiterates the doctrine of aberratio ictus, as embodied in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. In essence, it says that criminal liability is imposed for the acts committed in violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.

As such, even if the original criminal design does not squarely coincide with the resulting felony, as in this case due to a mistake in blow, or what is commonly referred to as the doctrine of aberratio ictus — the gunman must be held liable for an intentional felony, as opposed to criminal negligence as allegedly espoused by the police officers in the facts that you have mentioned. Precisely, the Supreme Court in Cruz v. People (GR 216642, Sept. 8, 2020) penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, elucidates:

'Torralba, an eight-year-old boy, was at the wrong place and time during the shooting incident. While Cruz did not intend to end the life of this child, the latter's death is a crime of homicide in accordance with Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and prevailing jurisprudence.

'Under Article 4, criminal liability is incurred 'by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.' Accordingly, the author of the felony shall be criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof, whether intended or not. For this provision to apply, it must be shown, however, (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender. The Court finds these elements present in this case.

'It has already been established that Cruz committed an intentional felony when he fired multiple shots at Bernardo. The death of Torralba, who was hit by one of those bullets intended for Bernardo, is a direct, natural, and logical consequence of said intentional felony. The death of Torralba is an example of aberratio ictus.'

With due respect to the police officers, their position lacks basis since the foregoing law and jurisprudence clearly dictate that a finding of dolo or malice is simply incompatible with criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code which defines reckless imprudence. Thus, the appropriate charge must pertain to an intentional crime for physical injuries.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor's note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney's Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net