Praeter intentionem (injurious result is greater than that intended) - it is the lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The injury is on the intended victim but the resulting consequences is so grave a wrong than what was intended. It happens when somebody already was planning to do something bad but his actions ended up producing something worse. 

There must be a great disparity between the means employed and the resulting felony. 

Intent as a mental process is shown by the external acts of the offender and is judged by the facts showing notable disproportion between the means employed, its consequences and the attendant circumstances, like the nature and kind of the weapon employed, the location of the wound inflicted, the number of wounds, and the conduct of the accused at the time of its commission. (US vs. Reyes, 26 Phil 791) 

Example: 

A stuffed a "pandesal" in the mouth of V to prevent her from making an outcry. The pandesal, however, slid into the neckline, caused by the victim's own movements while she was hogtied, resulting to V's death by asphyxiation. (People vs. Opero, G.R. No. L-48796, June 11, 1981)   


Implications:

●  Praeter intentionem is mitigating. [Art. 13(3), RPC]

● But if the means used to commit the desired crime would also logically and naturally bring about the actual felony, praeter intentionem does not apply.

Examples: 

- A wanted to inflict physical injuries on B. A hacked B with a bolo resulting to B's death. There is no praeter intentionem because the means used would logically and naturally result to the actual killing of A.

- The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed cannot be appreciated in favor of an accused who employed brute force — choking a 6-year old girl to death, who tried to shout while he was raping her — intention being gathered from and determined only by the conduct and external acts of the offender, and the results of the acts themselves. (People vs. Amit, G.R. No. L-29066, March 25, 1970)   

- The accused cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. He ought to have known that boxing a 5-month old child twice with the full force of his clenched fists would necessarily result in great physical harm to the child or even his death. Clearly, brute force was employed by the accused. (People vs. Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988)   

●  It is not considered if there is conspiracy since the act of one is the act of all. 

●  It is applicable only to felonies resulting in material or physical injuries. It does not apply to felonies committed through negligence.