Practice question
An attacker deliberately stabs the person in front of him, believing that person is a rival. The person is someone else. The attacker argues that this mistaken identity necessarily eliminates criminal intent. What is correct?
- The mistake automatically excuses the intentional unlawful attack
- The mistake makes every attack accidental
- The intended unlawful attack remains relevant; error in personae does not automatically negate criminal responsibility
- Only the victim’s real name matters
- No offense can occur without a prior acquaintance
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.