A. The first is the Mental Stage
General Rule: Mental acts such as thoughts, ideas, opinions and beliefs, are not subject of penal legislations. One may express an idea which is contrary to law, morals or is unconventional, but as long as he does not act on them or induce others to act on them, such mental matters are outside the realm of penal law and the person may not be subjected to criminal prosecution.
B. The Second is the External Stage which is where the accused performs acts which are observable
1). The Preparatory acts: Acts which may or may not lead to the commission of a concrete crime. Being equivocal they are not as rule punishable except when there is an express provision of law punishing specific preparatory acts.
Example: (i) the general rule: buying of a gun, bolo or poison, even if the purpose is to use these to kill a person; so also, with conspiracies and proposals.
(ii) The exception: possession of picklocks and false keys is punished; as with conspiracies to commit treason, rebellion, sedition and coup d’etat.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 6:
Only to intentional felonies by positive acts but not to: (i) Felonies by omission; (ii) Culpable felonies; and (iii) Violations of special laws, unless the special law provides for an attempted or frustrated stage. Examples of the exception are The Dangerous Drugs Law which penalizes an attempt to violate some of its provisions, and The Human Security Act of 2007.
THE ATTEMPTED STAGE:
The accused commences the commission of a felonious act directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance” One found inside a house but no article was found on him, is liable for trespass and not for attempted theft or robbery even if he is a notorious robber
THE FRUSTRATED STAGE:
The accused has performed all the acts of execution necessary to produce the felony but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused.
ATTEMPTED VS. FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE/MURDER
Where the accused, with intent to kill, injured the victim but the latter did not die, when is the crime attempted or frustrated?
1. First View: “The subjective phase doctrine”. If at that point where the accused has still control over the results of his actions but is stopped by reason outside of his own desistance and the subjective phase has not been passed, the offense is attempted:
2. Second View: The Mortal Wound or Life-Threatening Injury Doctrine: If a mortal wound or life-threatening injury had been inflicted, the offense is frustrated, else it is attempted (Palaganas vs. PP., Sept. 12, 2006)
3. Third View: The belief of the accused should be considered in that if the accused believed he has done all which is necessary to produce death, then it is frustrated.
CONSUMMATED
When all the elements of the crime are present whether it be the intended crime or a different crime.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING THE PROPER STAGE
A. The manner of the commission of the crime and how it is defined by the RPC. Some crimes have only the consummated stage (Formal crimes) such as threats, coercion, alarms and scandal, slander, acts of lasciviousness. In rape the gravamen is whether there is penetration or not, no matter how slight, hence rape is either attempted or consummated.
ARTICLE 6 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
ARTICLE 6. Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies.
— Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
The Court in People v. Lizada elaborated on the concept of an overt or external act, thus: An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
The raison d’etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is.
It is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the “first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made.” The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion.
It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense.