I. Summary of the Article
The article addresses the concept of error in personae — commonly referred to in Philippine criminal law as a mistake in identity — where an offender intends to commit a felony against a particular person but, due to misidentification, actually harms another. It emphasizes that such a mistake does not absolve the offender of criminal liability; the offender remains liable for the felony actually committed. The core premise is that criminal intent (dolo) follows the act despite the identity error, and therefore the offender’s culpability persists notwithstanding the misidentification of the victim.
The article dispels any notion that misidentification could serve as a mitigating circumstance or negate liability. It clarifies that the offender’s liability attaches to the actual harmful result — typically the inflicted injury or death — even if the identity of the victim was mistaken.
Read the article:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/12/31/legal-advice/felony-due-to-a-mistake-in-identity-or-error-in-personae/2250995?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPBw41jbGNrA8HCYXNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHk1_3JlzDpelOIS1k5ASuKXg29PZTKM2-TfLdbuQ02tGXqBXLB3OwqQjO33t&brid=zu9odHTEgB7thczD_DW01w
II. Legal Analysis — Doctrine, Liability, and Penalty
1. Error in Personae Defined and Its Legal Effect
Under the Revised Penal Code and established criminal law doctrine, error in personae occurs when:
The offender forms intent to commit a felony against Person A;
But mistakenly harms Person B, whom the offender believes to be Person A.
Legal Consequence:
Error in personae does not extinguish liability. The offender is liable for the felony as consummated against the actual victim (Person B), because:
Criminal intent persists — the offender still harbored dolo sufficient for an intentional felony;
Actus reus occurred — the felonious act was executed and resulted in harm.
This principle aligns with Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that one incurs criminal liability even though “the wrongful act done be different from what he intended” so long as the underlying intention to commit a felony existed.
2. Distinction from Aberratio Ictus and Praeter Intentionem
It is instructive to distinguish error in personae from related but distinct doctrines:
Aberratio Ictus: A mistake in the blow where the offender’s act deviates from the intended victim due to a physical misdirection — liability may extend to both real and intended victims.
Praeter Intentionem: Occurs when harm exceeds the offender’s intended foreseeability — liability remains but may be mitigated.
In contrast, under error in personae:
The offender intended to cause the same type of wrongful harm, albeit against a wrongly identified person; hence, intent is satisfied;
The identity error typically does not mitigate the crime unless it affects aggravating or qualifying circumstances tied specifically to the intended victim’s attributes (e.g., public official status).
3. Impact on Penalty and Qualifying Circumstances
While error in personae does not absolve liability, it may affect penalties in limited situations:
Qualifying circumstances linked to the victim’s identity (e.g., offense against a public officer in the performance of duty) may not apply if the actual victim was not the public officer intended.
The Supreme Court has recognized that aggravating circumstances must be factually and legally attributable to the actual harm inflicted, not the intended target. This conforms with the notion that penalties must be graduated and proportionate to the offense actually committed.
4. Practical Illustrations
Example: If a perpetrator intends to shoot a police officer (Person A) and instead shoots a civilian (Person B) misidentified as the officer, the offender is liable for the resulting homicide or physical injuries of Person B. However, any aggravating circumstance tied to the officer’s public function would be inapplicable because that attribute pertains to the intended, not the actual, victim.
III. Conclusion
The Manila Times article correctly underscores a fundamental principle of Philippine criminal law: identity errors do not defeat criminal liability for intentional felonies where intent and act coincide, rather, liability is anchored in the wrongful result produced. Error in personae sustains liability for the felony committed, subject to appropriate calibration of penalties where qualifying or aggravating circumstances specific to the intended victim cannot attach to the actual victim.
###
Below are verified Philippine Supreme Court cases that discuss or illustrate the doctrine of error in personae (mistake in identity of the victim) in criminal liability:
1) People of the Philippines vs. Gemoya and Tionko, G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000
• Supreme Court affirmed liability where a person was injured although not the intended victim, applying Article 4, Revised Penal Code on error in personae and aberratio ictus — holding that mistake in identity “is neither exempting nor mitigating” and that the accused remain liable for harm caused.
• Official link (LawPhil):
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/oct2000/gr_132633_2000.html
Relevance: This decision is one of the clearest modern articulations that error in personae does not absolve liability; the offender remains accountable for the criminal result despite misidentifying the victim.
2) People of the Philippines vs. Oanis and Galanta, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943
• The Court held that police officers who shot an innocent man they mistakenly believed to be a wanted convict were criminally liable for homicide, emphasizing that failure to verify identity cannot justify an intentional killing.
• Official link (LawPhil):
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1943/jul1943/gr_47722_1943.html
Relevance: Though an older decision, Oanis remains cited for the principle that mistake in identity does not negate culpability when the actor intentionally commits an unlawful act; the doctrine of ignorantia facti does not excuse culpability where the mistake is due to a culpable failure to verify.
3) People of the Philippines vs. Sia, Jr., G.R. No. 262603, April 2024
• The Supreme Court applied Article 4, RPC on error in personae and aberratio ictus in a modern context, holding that even if the actual victims were not the intended targets, liability (including qualifying circumstances like treachery) may still attach where the acts were intentional and proximate to the resulting harm.
• Official link (Philippine Supreme Court eLibrary):
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69469
Relevance: While not exclusively about error in personae, this decision confirms both the continued application and relevance of Article 4(1), RPC in contemporary jurisprudence, including its interplay with qualifying circumstances notwithstanding mistaken identity.
Additional Jurisprudential Notes (Not Direct Links but Supporting Authority)
- People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1930)
• Often cited historically in criminal law texts to illustrate that mistake of identity or in the blow does not exempt or mitigate liability.
- People vs. Bendecio, G.R. No. 235016, Sept. 8, 2020 and Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 216642, Sept. 8, 2020
• Cases interpreting Article 4(1), Revised Penal Code to impose liability for all direct and natural consequences of a felonious act even when actual victims differ from intended ones.
Doctrinal Principles from the Cases
Article 4(1) RPC is the statutory source for error in personae and aberratio ictus: “no person shall be exempt from criminal liability … although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”
In error in personae, the offender is liable for the felony committed against the actual victim if the criminal intent persists despite mistaken identity.
The doctrine is neither exempting nor mitigating when the intended and resulting crimes are the same in nature; where the resulting offense is different, Article 49 may apply to adjust penalties.
(Assisted by ChatGPT, December 31, 2025)
