Practice question
A single criminal act directed at one target also harms another. The proved act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies, with no special rule displacing Article 48. A party insists that Article 49 must govern simply because the actual harm differed from the plan. What is correct?
- Every mistaken result automatically invokes Article 49
- The stipulated single-act multiple-felony conditions require Article 48 analysis rather than automatic Article 49 treatment
- Article 48 never applies when another victim is hit
- The accused is liable only for the imagined result
- All unintended victims are outside criminal law
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1930/act_3815_1930.html — RPC Articles4(1),13(3) and49: unintended consequences, lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong and different intended offense.
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act1932/act_4000_1932.html — Current amended Article 48: single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/apr2024/gr_262603_2024.html — People v. Sia, G.R. 262603, April 15, 2024, main decision: mistaken identity and mistake in blow do not automatically negate intent.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1950/jan1950/gr_l-1477_1950.html — People v. Guillen, G.R. L-1477, January 18, 1950, main decision: Article 48 rather than automatic Article 49 in the single-act multiple-felony setting; historical death sentence not adopted.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.