- Statute
- Revised Penal Code
- Article
- Art. 4
- Topic
- Criminal liability
- Status
- In force
- Year
- 1930
- Cited by
- Multiple Supreme Court decisions
The provision
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. 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Intellegal Wiki · In plain terms
A person is criminally liable for a felony even when the harm that results differs from what was intended, so someone whose wrongful act misfires onto a different victim or effect still answers for the crime. Liability also attaches to 'impossible crimes': acts that would be offenses against persons or property but cannot succeed because completing them is inherently impossible or the means used are inadequate or ineffective.
An editorially maintained plain-language explanation of this provision — not legal advice.
Key points
Article 4 fixes when criminal liability is incurred. It arises, first, when a person committing a felony causes a wrongful result different from the one intended (the principle that one is liable for the natural consequences of a felonious act); and second, when a person performs an act that would be an offense against persons or property but for its inherent impossibility or the use of inadequate or ineffectual means — the impossible crime.
The first clause underlies doctrines such as proximate-cause liability in felonies; the second penalizes criminal intent even where the result could not occur. It is read with Article 3 on how felonies are committed.
The first mode rests on the principle that a person who commits a felony is liable for its direct, natural, and logical consequences, even when the actual victim or result differs from the one intended — the doctrines of error in personae, aberratio ictus, and praeter intentionem are analyzed under it. The second mode, the impossible crime, punishes criminal intent that could not produce the offense because of legal or physical impossibility, and is itself penalized under Article 59. The article is read with Article 3 on dolo and culpa.
Cases applying this article
- US v. Pareja G.R. No. 2323
- Ronilo Velasco y De Leon v. People G.R. No. 255490