Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae, and Praeter Intentionem
These doctrines pertain to felonies under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and provide insights into criminal liability, particularly when a crime results differently from what the offender intended. They highlight the interplay between intent, error, and actual results in determining the offender's accountability.
1. ABERRATIO ICTUS (Mistake in the Blow)
Definition
Aberratio Ictus occurs when the offender aims to commit a felony against an intended victim but instead causes injury or harm to another person due to an accidental diversion of the blow.
Requisites
- Criminal intent to commit a felony.
- There is a mistake in the blow, causing harm to someone other than the intended victim.
- The act is unlawful.
Legal Effect
- The offender is liable for:
- The crime committed against the unintended victim; and
- Any crime committed against the intended victim (if harm occurs to them as well).
- Complex Crime Rule (Article 48 of the RPC) applies if a single act results in multiple grave or less grave felonies.
- Exception: If the felony committed against the unintended victim is light, Article 48 does not apply.
Example
A aims a gun at B intending to kill him, but the bullet accidentally hits C. Here:
- A is liable for homicide (or murder if qualifying circumstances exist) for the death of C.
- If B is injured in the process, A is also liable for physical injuries against B.
2. ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in the Identity of the Victim)
Definition
Error in Personae occurs when the offender mistakenly identifies the victim, harming or killing someone other than the intended target.
Requisites
- Mistaken identity of the victim.
- Intent to commit a crime against another specific person.
Legal Effect
- Intent follows the blow: The offender is liable for the consequences of their felonious act.
- Mitigating Circumstances:
- If the mistake in identity negates qualifying or aggravating circumstances (e.g., premeditation or evident cruelty), the penalty may be mitigated.
- Doctrine of Proximate Cause applies: The act causing harm must still be traced to the offender's criminal intent.
Example
D intends to kill E but mistakenly shoots F, thinking F is E. In this case:
- D is liable for homicide (or murder, depending on the circumstances) against F.
- If D did not know F's identity, no aggravating or qualifying circumstance related to the intended victim (E) can attach to the crime against F.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM (Injury Different from What Was Intended)
Definition
Praeter Intentionem arises when the offender causes a more serious harm or damage than intended, without malice to produce such an outcome.
Requisites
- There is criminal intent, but it is limited only to a lesser crime or harm.
- The resultant harm exceeds the offender’s intention.
- Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as the one committed.
Legal Effect
- The offender is still liable, but the penalty is reduced due to the lack of intent to cause so grave a harm.
- Mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem may apply under Article 13(3) of the RPC if the greater harm was caused solely by negligence or accident.
Example
G punches H in the chest during an argument, intending only to cause slight harm. However, H collapses and dies due to a pre-existing heart condition. Here:
- G is liable for homicide but may invoke the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem because the death was not intended.
Key Differences
| Concept | Definition | Focus | Legal Liability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aberratio Ictus | Mistake in the blow; harm to an unintended victim. | Unintended victim. | Liable for crimes against both intended and actual victims. |
| Error in Personae | Mistake in identity; wrong victim harmed. | Mistaken identity. | Liable for harm caused to the unintended victim. |
| Praeter Intentionem | Greater harm caused than intended. | Disproportionate outcome. | Liable but with a mitigated penalty. |
Application in Criminal Law
- Intention vs. Actual Harm: These doctrines emphasize the importance of criminal intent (dolo) in determining liability.
- Mitigating Circumstances: Error in Personae and Praeter Intentionem may lead to reduced penalties when the offender’s criminal intent is less culpable than the resultant harm.
- Complex Crimes: Aberratio Ictus may result in multiple criminal liabilities under Article 48, depending on the harm caused to both the intended and unintended victims.
Jurisprudence
- People v. Oanis and Callanta (1943) – Illustrates Error in Personae where officers mistakenly killed an innocent individual thinking he was the intended target.
- People v. Guillen (1947) – An example of Aberratio Ictus when a bomb intended for a government official killed unintended victims.
- People v. Ural (1987) – Clarified Praeter Intentionem by reducing liability due to the disproportionate harm caused compared to the offender’s intent.
These doctrines underscore the nuanced understanding of intent, error, and outcomes in criminal law, balancing accountability with fairness.