Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) - the offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else. The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the scene of the crime.

- occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the consequences on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.

Example: B and C were walking together.  A wanted to shoot B, but he instead injured C.

There are 3 persons present:

1.  the offender
2.  the intended victim
3.  the actual victim

● The accused is liable for frustrated homicide for the injuries of the two small children because he fired the shot at Noel Andres that hit instead his pregnant wife and two small children. He is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act even if the crime committed is different from that intended (aberratio ictus). (People vs. Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 139542. June 21, 2001)   

● The fact that the target of Talampas assault was Eduardo, not Ernesto, did not excuse his hitting and killing of Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was the natural and direct consequence of Talampas felonious deadly assault against Eduardo. Talampas poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability. Lo que es causa de la causa, es causa del mal causado (what is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. (Talampas vs. People, G.R. No. 180219, November 23, 2011)   

●  Where the accused is shown to be jealous of a rival for the affection of a girl and he kills another on the mistaken belief that the victim was his said rival, it cannot be said that there is lack of motive for the killing. (People vs. Plateros, G.R. No. L-37162. May 30, 1978) 

● The fact that the victims were different from the ones the appellants intended to injure cannot save them from conviction. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim. The main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused had acted with such a disregard for the life of the victim(s) — without checking carefully the latter's identity as to place himself on the same legal plane as one who kills another willfully, unlawfully and feloniously. Neither may the fact that the accused made a mistake in killing one man instead of another be considered a mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Pinto, G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991) 

Implications: 

●  Aberratio ictus is not mitigating. 

● In aberratio ictus, there is still criminal liability, which is generally increased because it either becomes a complex crime or two separate crimes – against the intended and the real victim.