Art. 9.

Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of
their are afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which he penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided.
 Capital punishment – death penalty.
 Penalties (imprisonment): Grave – six years and one day to reclusion perpetua (life); Less grave – one
month and one day to six years; Light – arresto menor (one day to 30 days).
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
This question was asked in the bar examination: How do you classify felonies or how are felonies classified?
What the examiner had in mind was Articles 3, 6 and 9. Do not write the classification of felonies under Book 2
of the Revised Penal Code. That was not what the examiner had in mind because the question does not require
the candidate to classify but also to define. Therefore, the examiner was after the classifications under Articles
3, 6 and 9.
Felonies are classified as follows:
(1) According to the manner of their commission
Under Article 3, they are classified as, intentional felonies or those committed with deliberate intent; and
culpable felonies or those resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
(2) According to the stages of their execution
Under Article 6., felonies are classified as attempted felony 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; frustrated felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony as a consequence but which would produce the felony as a consequence
but which nevertheless do not produce the felony by reason of causes independent of the perpetrator; and,
consummated felony when all the elements necessary for its execution are present.
(3) According to their gravity
Under Article 9, felonies are classified as grave felonies or those to which attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive; less grave felonies or those to which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period was correccional; and light felonies or those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty is arresto menor.
Why is it necessary to determine whether the crime is grave, less grave or light?
To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not, and to determine the prescription of the crime
and the prescription of the penalty. In other words, these are felonies classified according to their gravity,
stages and the penalty attached to them. Take note that when the Revised Penal Code speaks of grave and less
grave felonies, the definition makes a reference specifically to Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code. Do not omit
the phrase “In accordance with Article 25” because there is also a classification of penalties under Article 26 that
was not applied.
If the penalty is fine and exactly P200.00, it is only considered a light felony under Article 9.
If the fine is imposed as an alternative penalty or as a single penalty, the fine of P200.00 is considered a
correctional penalty under Article 26.
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Article 26. It is considered as correctional penalty and it prescribes in 10
years. If the offender is apprehended at any time within ten years, he can be made to suffer the fine.
This classification of felony according to gravity is important with respect to the question of prescription of
crimes.
In the case of light felonies, crimes prescribe in two months. If the crime is correctional, it prescribes in ten
years, except arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years.
Art. 10. Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially
provide the contrary.
 For Special Laws: Penalties should be imprisonment, and not reclusion perpetua, etc.
 Offenses that are attempted or frustrated are not punishable, unless otherwise stated.
 Plea of guilty is not mitigating for offenses punishable by special laws.
 No minimum, medium, and maximum periods for penalties.
 No penalty for an accessory or accomplice, unless otherwise stated.

 Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

1. Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
2. Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
3. Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
In Article 10, there is a reservation “provision of the Revised Penal Code may be applied suppletorily to special
laws”. You will only apply the provisions of the Revised Penal Code as a supplement to the special law, or simply
correlate the violated special law, if needed to avoid an injustice. If no justice would result, do not give
suppletorily application of the Revised Penal Code to that of special law.
For example, a special law punishes a certain act as a crime. The special law is silent as to the civil liability of
one who violates the same. Here is a person who violated the special law and he was prosecuted. His violation
caused damage or injury to a private party. May the court pronounce that he is civilly liable to the offended
party, considering that the special law is silent on this point? Yes, because Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
may be given suppletory application to prevent an injustice from being done to the offended party. Article 100
states that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. That article shall be applied
suppletory to avoid an injustice that would be caused to the private offended party, if he would not be
indemnified for the damages or injuries sustained by him.
In People v. Rodriguez, it was held that the use of arms is an element of rebellion, so a rebel cannot be further
prosecuted for possession of firearms. A violation of a special law can never absorb a crime punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, because violations of the Revised Penal Code are more serious than a violation of a special
law. But a crime in the Revised Penal Code can absorb a crime punishable by a special law if it is a necessary
ingredient of the crime in the Revised Penal Code
In the crime of sedition, the use of firearms is not an ingredient of the crime. Hence, two prosecutions can be
had: (1) sedition; and (2) illegal possession of firearms.
But do not think that when a crime is punished outside of the Revised Penal Code, it is already a special law. For
example, the crime of cattle-rustling is not a mala prohibitum but a modification of the crime theft of large
cattle. So Presidential Decree No. 533, punishing cattle-rustling, is not a special law. It can absorb the crime of
murder. If in the course of cattle rustling, murder was committed, the offender cannot be prosecuted for
murder. Murder would be a qualifying circumstance in the crime of qualified cattle rustling. This was the ruling
in People v. Martinada.
The amendments of Presidential Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) by Republic Act No. 7659,
which adopted the scale of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, means that mitigating and aggravating
circumstances can now be considered in imposing penalties. Presidential Decree No. 6425 does not expressly
prohibit the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code. The stages of the commission of felonies will also
apply since suppletory application is now allowed.
Circumstances affecting criminal liability

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

(1) Justifying circumstances;

(2) Exempting circumstances;

(3) Mitigating circumstances;

(4) Aggravating circumstances; and

(5) Alternative circumstances.

There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

(1) Absolutory cause; and

(2) Extenuating circumstances.

In justifying and exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability. When an accused invokes them, he in
effect admits the commission of a crime but tries to avoid the liability thereof. The burden is upon him to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the required conditions to justify or exempt his acts from criminal
liability. What is shifted is only the burden of evidence, not the burden of proof.
Justifying circumstances contemplate intentional acts and, hence, are incompatible with dolo. Exempting
circumstances may be invoked in culpable felonies.
Absolutory cause
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the
same effect as an exempting circumstance, but you do not call it as such in order not to confuse it with the
circumstances under Article 12.
Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the exception of accessories who profited themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished:
Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
if death occurs before final judgment;
Service of the sentence;
Amnesty;
Absolute pardon;
Prescription of the crime;
Prescription of the penalty; and
Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.

Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he
surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.
Under Article 219, discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not
penalized.
Under Article 332, in the case of theft, swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only
civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother
and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the
deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties.
Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action.
Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness
like instigation. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in connection with
instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. It
is confused with entrapment.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal
liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply
acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the
instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.
Difference between instigation and entrapment
In instigation, the criminal plan or design exists in the mind of the law enforcer with whom the person instigated
cooperated so it is said that the person instigated is acting only as a mere instrument or tool of the law enforcer
in the performance of his duties.
On the other hand, in entrapment, a criminal design is already in the mind of the person entrapped. It did not
emanate from the mind of the law enforcer entrapping him. Entrapment involves only ways and means which are
laid down or resorted to facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.
The element which makes instigation an absolutory cause is the lack of criminal intent as an element of
voluntariness.
If the instigator is a law enforcer, the person instigated cannot be criminally liable, because it is the law enforcer
who planted that criminal mind in him to commit the crime, without which he would not have been a criminal. If
the instigator is not a law enforcer, both will be criminally liable, you cannot have a case of instigation. In
instigation, the private citizen only cooperates with the law enforcer to a point when the private citizen upon
instigation of the law enforcer incriminates himself. It would be contrary to public policy to prosecute a citizen
who only cooperated with the law enforcer. The private citizen believes that he is a law enforcer and that is why
when the law enforcer tells him, he believes that it is a civil duty to cooperate.
If the person instigated does not know that the person is instigating him is a law enforcer or he knows him to be
not a law enforcer, this is not a case of instigation. This is a case of inducement, both will be criminally liable.
In entrapment, the person entrapped should not know that the person trying to entrap him was a law
enforcer. The idea is incompatible with each other because in entrapment, the person entrapped is actually
committing a crime. The officer who entrapped him only lays down ways and means to have evidence of the
commission of the crime, but even without those ways and means, the person entrapped is actually engaged in a
violation of the law.
Instigation absolves the person instigated from criminal liability. This is based on the rule that a person cannot be
a criminal if his mind is not criminal. On the other hand, entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It is not even
mitigating.
In case of somnambulism or one who acts while sleeping, the person involved is definitely acting without freedom
and without sufficient intelligence, because he is asleep. He is moving like a robot, unaware of what he is
doing. So the element of voluntariness which is necessary in dolo and culpa is not present. Somnambulism is an
absolutory cause. If element of voluntariness is absent, there is no criminal liability, although there is civil
liability, and if the circumstance is not among those enumerated in Article 12, refer to the circumstance as an
absolutory cause.
Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause. The offender is acting without criminal intent. So in mistake of fact, it is
necessary that had the facts been true as the accused believed them to be, this act is justified. If not, there is
criminal liability, because there is no mistake of fact anymore. The offender must believe he is performing a
lawful act.

Extenuating circumstances

The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In other words, this has the same effect as
mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it mitigating because this is not found in Article 13.

Illustrations:
An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating
circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the
father of the child is concerned. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by
two degrees. Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating
circumstance.
The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the
case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.
In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband, at the time she was
abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. Abandonment by the
husband does not justify the act of the woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. When the effect
of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.
A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not
exempting. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. But he
would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering
from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the
consciousness of his act. So this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.
Distinctions between justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances
In justifying circumstances –
(1) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
(2) The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence, it is
legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
(3) Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no
criminal;
(4) Since there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.
In exempting circumstances –
(1) The circumstances affect the actor, not the act;
(2) The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without voluntariness. He is a mere
tool or instrument of the crime;
(3) Since the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. But because the actor acted
without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal;
(4) Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong
done. But there is no criminal liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there is neither criminal
nor civil liability.
When you apply for justifying or exempting circumstances, it is confession and avoidance and burden of proof
shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence.

Art. 11: Justifying Circumstances – those wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law, hence,
he is justified. There is no criminal and civil liability because there is no crime.
 Self-defense
1. Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the State to protect all its
citizens. Also a person cannot just give up his rights without any resistance being offered.
2. Rights included in self-defense:

1. Defense of person

2. Defense of rights protected by law

1. Defense of property:
a. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)

b. defense of chastity

3. Elements:
1. 1. Unlawful Aggression– is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it is either actual or
imminent.
1. Actual/real aggression – Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful
intent of the aggressor, which is not merely threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material
attack. There must be real danger to life a personal safety.
2. Imminent unlawful aggression – it is an attack that is impending or on the point of happening. It
must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary. The intimidating
attitude must be offensive and positively strong.
3. Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Each of the protagonists is
at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because
aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the
combatants. Exception: Where the attack is made in violation of the conditions agreed upon, there
may be unlawful aggression.
4. Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the time the defense is made. It
may no longer exist if the aggressor runs away after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to
continue fighting. If the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered the injury
before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self-defense, but revenge.
 A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his
dignity is in danger.
 A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
 The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of self-defense.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
a. Requisites:
 Means were used to prevent or repel
 Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
 Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to the force of
the aggressor.
1. The rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoked when the defender is unlawfully
assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon.
2. The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run away.
3. The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.
 The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational
mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self-preservation, using the nearest or only means
available to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionately advantageous as compared with the
means of violence employed by the aggressor.
 Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used, physical
condition, character, size and other circumstances.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
2. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause
violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the
aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself.
3. When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.
4. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or
immediate to the act of provocation.
5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its
commission.
1. Kinds of Self-Defense
1. Self-defense of chastity – to be entitled to complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an
attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice.
2. Defense of property – an attack on the property must be coupled with an attack on the person of
the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such property.
3. Self-defense in libel – physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good
name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.

*Burden of proof – on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution).

 Defense of Relative
A. Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in
such provocation.
B. Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
 The third element need not take place. The relative defended may even be the original aggressor. All that
is required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation.
 General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, except in cases of brothers
and sisters who, by relatives by nature, may be illegitimate.
 The unlawful aggression may depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense.
 Defense of Stranger
A. Elements
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
 2. A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.
3. Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a
stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so long as he is not induced by a motive that is evil.
 State of Necessity
1. Art. 11, Par. a provides:
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided
that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
1. A state of necessity exists when there is a clash between unequal rights, the lesser right giving way to the
greater right. Aside from the 3 requisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessity must
not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by the actor.
2. The person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which may have been received. This is the only justifying circumstance which provides for the
payment of civil indemnity. Under the other justifying circumstances, no civil liability attaches. The
courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which law one is liable
 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office
1. Elements:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. that the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of the
duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
2. A police officer is justified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and
after such officer fired warning shots in the air.
 shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but not a thief who refused to be arrested.
3. The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position he claimed he was discharging at the
time of the commission of the offense. It must be made to appear not only that the injury caused or the
offense committed was done in the fulfillment of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but
that the offense committed was a necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful exercise of
a right or office.
4. A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s death.
 Obedience to a Superior Order
1. Elements:
1. there is an order;
2. the order is for a legal purpose;
3. the means used to carry out said order is lawful.
2. The subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party which may avail of this
circumstance. The officer giving the order may not invoke this.
3. The subordinate’s good faith is material here. If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being aware of its
illegality, he is not liable. However, the order must not be patently illegal. If the order is patently illegal
this circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
4. The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.
 5. Even if the order be patently illegal, the subordinate may yet be able to invoke the exempting
circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

 Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those ground for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the agent of the crime of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary, or
negligent.
 Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
 A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action or fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT
FROM PUNISHMENT.
 There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of the complete absence of any
of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act.
 Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by the defendant to
the satisfaction of the court.
Art. 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The following are exempt from criminal
liability:
1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
 When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement on one of the hospital or asylums established for persons thus afflicted.
He shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
 Requisites:
1. Offender is an imbecile
2. Offender was insane at the time of the commission of the crime
 IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
 An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability. The insane is not so exempt if it can be shown
that he acted during a lucid interval. In the latter, loss of consciousness of ones acts and not merely
abnormality of mental faculties will qualify ones acts as those of an insane.
 Procedure: court is to order the confinement of such persons in the hospitals or asylums established. Such
persons will not be permitted to leave without permission from the court. The court, on the other hand,
has no power to order such permission without first obtaining the opinion of the DOH that such persons may
be released without danger.
 Presumption is always in favor of sanity. The defense has the burden to prove that the accused was insane
at the time of the commission of the crime. For the ascertainment such mental condition of the accused,
it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before
and after that time. Circumstantial evidence which is clear and convincing will suffice. An examination of
the outward acts will help reveal the thoughts, motives and emotions of a person and if such acts conform
to those of people of sound mind.
 Insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and not that at the time of the trial will exempt one
from criminal liability. In case of insanity at the time of the trial, there will be a suspension of the trial
until the mental capacity of the accused is restored to afford him a fair trial.
  Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of
its execution. Without such evidence, the accused is presumed to be sane when he committed the
crime. Continuance of insanity which is occasional or intermittent in nature will not be presumed. Insanity
at another time must be proved to exist at the time of the commission of the crime. A person is also
presumed to have committed a crime in one of the lucid intervals. Continuance of insanity will only be
presumed in cases wherein the accused has been adjudged insane or has been committed to a hospital or
an asylum for the insane.
 Instances of Insanity:
 Reyes: Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because the offender can distinguish right from wrong. An
imbecile and an insane to be exempted must not be able to distinguish right from wrong.
 Relova: Feeblemindedness is imbecility.
 Crimes committed while in a dream, by a somnambulist are embraced in the plea of insanity. Hypnotism,
however, is a debatable issue.
 Crime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characterized by insanity at times thus such
person is not criminally liable.
1. Basis: complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.
2. Definition : An imbecile is one who while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years of age. An insane is one who acts with complete deprivation of
intelligence/reason or without the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of the will.
1. Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity because homicidal attack is common in such form of
psychosis. It is characterized by delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is
being taken, thus the person has no control over his acts.
2. Kleptomania or presence of abnormal, persistent impulse or tendency to steal, to be
considered exempting, will still have to be investigated by competent psychiatrist to determine if the
unlawful act is due to the irresistible impulse produced by his mental defect, thus loss of will-power. If
such mental defect only diminishes the exercise of his willpower and did not deprive him of the
consciousness of his acts, it is only mitigating.
3. Epilepsy which is a chronic nervous disease characterized by convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of
consciousness may be covered by the term insanity. However, it must be shown that commission of the
offense is during one of those epileptic attacks.

2. A person under nine years of age.

 MINORITY
 Under nine years to be construed nine years or less. Such was inferred from the next subsequent paragraph
which does not totally exempt those over nine years of age if he acted with discernment.
 Presumptions of incapability of committing a crime is absolute.
 Age is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime. Age can be established by the testimonies
of families and relatives.
 Senility or second childhood is only mitigating.
 4 periods of the life of a human being:
1. Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. There is absolute
criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9-years of age.
2. Basis: complete absence of intelligence.
 Age Criminal Responsibility

9 years and below Absolute irresponsibility

Conditional responsibility

Between 9 and 15 Without discernment – no liability With Discernment – mitigated liability

years old

Between 15 and 18
years old Mitigated responsibility

Between 18 and 70
years old Full responsibility

Over 70 years old Mitigated responsibilit

3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which
case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of
this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged
with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or
person mentioned in said article 80.
 QUALIFIED MINORITY: Basis: complete absence of intelligence
 Such minor over 9 years and under 15 years of age must have acted without discernment to be exempted
from criminal liability. If with discernment, he is criminally liable.
 Presumption is always that such minor has acted without discernment. The prosecution is burdened to
prove if otherwise.
 Discernment means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act. Such is shown by: (1) manner the crime was committed (i.e. commission
of the crime during nighttime to avoid detection; taking the loot to another town to avoid discovery), or (2)
the conduct of the offender after its commission (i.e. elation of satisfaction upon the commission of his
criminal act as shown by the accused cursing at the victim).
 Facts or particular facts concerning personal appearance which lead officers or the court to believe that his
age was as stated by said officer or court should be stated in the record.
 If such minor is adjudged to be criminally liable, he is charged to the custody of his family, otherwise, to
the care of some institution or person mentioned in article 80. This is because of the court’s
presupposition that the minor committed the crime without discernment.
 Allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment as such conveys
the idea that he knew what would be the consequences of his unlawful act. Thus is the case wherein the
information alleges that the accused, with intent to kill, willfully, criminally and feloniously pushed a child
of 8 1/2 years of age into a deep place. It was held that the requirement that there should be an allegation
that she acted with discernment should be deemed amply met.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without
fault or intention of causing it.

 ACCIDENT: Basis: lack of negligence and intent.

  Elements:
 Discharge of a firearm in a thickly populated place in the City of Manila being prohibited by Art. 155 of the
RPC is not a performance of a lawful act when such led to the accidental hitting and wounding of 2
persons.
 Drawing a weapon/gun in the course of self-defense even if such fired and seriously injured the assailant is
a lawful act and can be considered as done with due care since it could not have been done in any other
manner.
 With the fact duly established by the prosecution that the appellant was guilty of negligence, this
exempting circumstance cannot be applied because application presupposes that there is no fault or
negligence on the part of the person performing the lawful act.
 Accident happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
 The accused, who, while hunting saw wild chickens and fired a shot can be considered to be in the
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing harm when such short
recoiled and accidentally wounded another. Such was established because the deceased was not in the
direction at which the accused fired his gun.
 The chauffeur, who while driving on the proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with due
diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle coming from the sidewalk and
crossing the street without any warning that he would do so, in effect being run over by the said chauffeur,
was held not criminally liable, it being by mere accident.
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. Exercise of due dare
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

 IRRESISTIBLE FORCE: Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness

 Elements:
 Force, to be irresistible, must produce such an effect on an individual that despite of his resistance, it
reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. It compels his member
to act and his mind to obey. It must act upon him from the outside and by a third person.
 Baculi, who was accused but not a member of a band which murdered some American school teachers and
was seen and compelled by the leaders of the band to bury the bodies, was not criminally liable as
accessory for concealing the body of the crime. Baculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
 Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. It must consist of an
extraneous force coming from a third person.
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
3. That the physical force must come from a third person
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR: Basis: complete absence of freedom
 Elements
 1. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to that w/c he is required
to commit
2. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
 Duress, to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb.
It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
 Threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat.
 Duress is the use of violence or physical force.
 There is uncontrollable fear is when the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime, while irresistible force is when the offender uses violence or physical force to compel
another person to commit a crime.
 “an act done by me against my will is not my act”
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.
 LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE: Basis: acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in
intentional felony
 Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be done
2. That a person fails to perform such act
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
 Examples of lawful cause:
 To be an EXEMPTING circumstance – INTENT IS WANTING
 INTENT – presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
 Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstance:
1. Priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him
2. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to die – not liable for
infanticide
1. Exempting – there is a crime but there is no criminal. Act is not justified but the actor is not criminally
liable.

General Rule: There is civil liability

Exception: Par 4 (causing an injury by mere accident) and Par 7 (lawful cause)

b. Justifying – person does not transgress the law, does not commit any crime because there is nothing unlawful in
the act as well as the intention of the actor.

Distinction between Exempting and Justifying Circumstances

Exempting Circumstance Justifying Circumstance

There is a crime but there is no

Existence criminal, the actor is exempted from
of a crime liability of his act There is no crime, the act is justified
  Absolutory Causes – are those where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of public policy and
sentiment, there is no penalty imposed.
 Exempting and Justifying Circumstances are absolutory causes.
 Other examples of absolutory causes:

1) Art 6 – spontaneous desistance

2) Art 20 – accessories exempt from criminal liability

3) Art 19 par 1 – profiting one’s self or assisting offenders to profit by the effects of the crime

 Instigation v. Entrapment

INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT

Instigator practically induces the would-be The ways and means are resorted to for the
accused into the commission of the offense and purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker
himself becomes co-principal in the execution of his criminal plan.

NOT a bar to accused’s prosecution and

Accused will be acquitted conviction

Absolutory cause NOT an absolutory cause

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 Definition – Those circumstance which reduce the penalty of a crime
 Effect – Reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the
crime
 Kinds of Mitigating Circumstance:

 Privileged Mitigating Ordinary Mitigating

Offset by any
aggravating Cannot be offset by any aggravating Can be offset by a generic aggravating
circumstance circumstance circumstance

If not offset, has the effect of

Effect on the Has the effect of imposing the penalty by imposing the penalty in the minimum
penalty 1 or 2 degrees than that provided by law period

Minority, Incomplete Self-defense, two or

more mitigating circumstances without
any aggravating circumstance (has the
effect of lowering the penalty by one Those circumstances enumerated in
Kinds degree) paragraph 1 to 10 of Article 13

Article 13.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant
 Justifying circumstances
1. Self-defense/defense of relative/defense of stranger – unlawful aggression must be present for Art 13 to
be applicable. Other 2 elements not necessary. If 2 requisites are present – considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
Example: Juan makes fun of Pedro. Pedro gets pissed off, gets a knife and tries to stab Juan. Juan grabs his own
knife and kills Pedro. Incomplete self-defense because although there was unlawful aggression and reasonable
means to repel was taken, there was sufficient provocation on the part of Juan. But since 2 elements are present,
it considered as privileged mitigating.
b. State of Necessity (par 4) avoidance of greater evil or injury; if any of the last 2 requisites is absent, there’s
only an ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Example: While driving his car, Juan sees Pedro carelessly crossing the street. Juan swerves to avoid him, thus
hitting a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them instantly. Not all requisites to justify act were present because
harm done to avoid injury is greater. Considered as mitigating.
c. Performance of Duty (par 5)
Example: Juan is supposed to arrest Pedro. He thus goes to Pedro’s hideout. Juan sees a man asleep. Thinking it
was Pedro, Juan shot him. Juan may have acted in the performance of his duty but the crime was not a necessary
consequence thereof. Considered as mitigating.
 Exempting circumstance
a. Minority over 9 and under 15 – if minor acted with discernment, considered mitigating
Example: 13 year old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown by the manner in which the act
was committed.
b. Causing injury by mere accident – if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite (without fault – thus
negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as mitigating because the penalty is lower than that provided for
intentional felony.
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in the air. Bullet ricocheted
and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear – only one requisite present, considered mitigating
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took turns guarding it at night. Pedro fired
in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his identity. Juan was awakened and shot the
unidentified person. Turned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted under the influence of
fear but such fear was not entirely uncontrollable. Considered mitigating
2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of a minor, he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of Art 192 of PD 903
 Applicable to:

a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment

b. Offender over 15, under 18

c. Offender over 70 years

 Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial
 Various Ages and their Legal Effects

a. under 9 – exemptive circumstance

b. over 9, below 15 – exemptive; except if acted with discernment

c. minor delinquent under 18 – sentence may be suspended (PD 603)

d. under 18 – privileged mitigating circumstance

e. 18 and above – full criminal responsibility

f. 70 and above – mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution g. of death sentence if
already imposed is suspended and commuted.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (praeter intentionam)
 Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between
means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences
 Intention: as an internal act, is judged by the proportion of the means employed to the evil produced by
the act, and also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body.
 Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury inflicted and (3) the attitude of mind when the
accuser attacked the other.
Example: Pedro stabbed Tomas on the arm. Tomas did not have the wound treated, so he died from loss of blood.
 Not applicable when offender employed brute force
Example: Rapist choked victim. Brute force of choking contradicts claim that he had no intention to kill the girl.
 Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes
or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage.
 In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to
mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating only when the victim dies.
Example: As part of fun-making, Juan merely intended to burn Pedro’s clothes. Pedro received minor burns. Juan
is charged with physical injuries. Had Pedro died, Juan would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance.
 Not applicable to felonies by negligence. Why? In felonies through negligence, the offender acts without
intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill in culpable felonies. There is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered as
diminished.
 Basis of par 3: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished
4. That the sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
 Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone.
 Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
 Requisites:

a. Provocation must be sufficient.

1. Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate
to its gravity.

2. Sufficiency depends on:

  the act constituting the provocation
 the social standing of the person provoked
 time and place provocation took place
3. Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. There’s mitigating circumstance
because of sufficient provocation.

4. When it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight by the deceased is NOT sufficient
provocation.

b. It must originate from the offended party

1. Why? Law says the provocation is “on the part of the offended party”

2. Example: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. No Mitigating Circumstance
because it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas.

3. Provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating

Circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because the deceased from the moment he fled did
not give any provocation for the accused to pursue and attack him.

c. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked

1. Why? If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the
accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self-
control.
2. Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real injury is an
unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and thus no longer a Mitigating Circumstance
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree.
1. Requisites:
 there’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
 that the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

2. Lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing the offense (proximate time, not just
immediately after)

3. Example: Juan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation. Juan kills his friend the next day – still
considered proximate.

PROVOCATION VINDICATION
 Made directly only to the person committing the Grave offense may be also against the offender’s
felony relatives mentioned by law

Cause that brought about the provocation need Offended party must have done a grave offense
not be a grave offense to the offender or his relatives

Necessary that provocation or threat immediately

preceded the act. No time interval May be proximate. Time interval allowed

 More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. Such is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.
 Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation can’t be counted separately and independently
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
 Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby dismissing the exercise of his will power.
 PASSION AND OBFUSCATION are Mitigating Circumstances only when the same arise from lawful sentiments
(not Mitigating Circumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness)
 Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation

a. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation

b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge

c. The act must come from lawful sentiments

 Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation

a. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust

b. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind

c. That the act was proximate to the criminal act

d. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation

 Example: Juan saw Tomas hitting his (Juan) son. Juan stabbed Tomas. Juan is entitled to Mitigating
Circumstance of P&O as his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the
rescue of his son.
 The exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a duty is not the proper source of P&O.
Example: A policeman arrested Juan as he was making a public disturbance on the streets. Juan’s anger and
indignation resulting from the arrest can’t be considered passionate obfuscation because the policeman was doing
a lawful act.
 The act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. If the cause of the loss of self-control was trivial
and slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating.
Example: Juan’s boss punched him for not going to work he other day. Cause is slight.
 There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of P&O when more than 24 hours elapsed between the
alleged insult and the commission of the felony, or several hours have passed between the cause of the
 P&O and the commission of the crime, or at least ½ hours intervened between the previous fight and
subsequent killing of deceased by accused.
 Not mitigating if relationship is illegitimate
 The passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based only on the honest belief of the offender,
even if facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong.
 Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since the means that the offender has had time to
ponder his course of action.
 PASSION AND OBFUSCATION arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance
 Vindication of grave offense can’t co-exist w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IRRESITIBLE FORCE

Mitigating Exempting

No physical force needed Requires physical force

From the offender himself Must come from a 3rd person

Must come from lawful sentiments Unlawful

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION

Produced by an impulse which may be

caused by provocation Comes from injured party

Offense, which engenders perturbation

of mind, need not be immediate. It is
only required that the influence thereof Must immediately precede the
lasts until the crime is committed commission of the crime

Effect is loss of reason and self-control

on the part of the offender Same

7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
 2 Mitigating Circumstances present:

a) voluntarily surrendered

b) voluntarily confessed his guilt

 If both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigate penalty to a greater
extent
 Requisites of voluntary surrender:

a) offender not actually arrested

b) offender surrendered to a person in authority or the latter’s agent

c) surrender was voluntary

  Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender unconditionally to the authorities
 Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the
accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the
surrender.
Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.
Example: Surrendered after talking to town councilor. Not V.S. because there’s an external stimulus
 Conduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibility
 Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be considered mitigating if warrant not served
or returned unserved because accused can’t be located.
 Surrender of person required. Not just of weapon.
 Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court/government/corporation/board/commission. Barrio captain/chairman included.
 Agent of person in authority – person who by direct provision of law, or be election, or by appointment by
competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
 RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender may occur.
 Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged
 Requisites for plea of guilty

a) offender spontaneously confessed his guilt

b) confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court)

c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution

 plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea considered as
Mitigating Circumstance
 plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating – must make plea at the first opportunity
 plea during the preliminary investigation is no plea at all
 even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to Mitigating Circumstance as long as
withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the fiscal could present his evidence
 plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating Circumstance because to be voluntary plea of guilty, must be to the
offense charged
 plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating
Circumstance
 present Rules of Court require that even if accused pleaded guilty to a capital offense, its mandatory for
court to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused being likewise entitled to present
evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating Circumstance

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect w/c thus restricts
his means of action, defense or communication w/ his fellow beings.

 Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and
therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
  No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons
 The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or communication with
fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers.
 The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the offenders do not have a complete freedom
of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender w/o depriving him
of consciousness of his acts.

 Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent

 Requisites:

a) illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power

b) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts

 when the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power, it may be an exempting circumstance
 deceased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation
10. And any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned
 Examples of “any other circumstance”:

a) defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70 years old

b) outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense

c) impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

d) voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender

e) extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity

 NOT analogous:

a) killing wrong person

b) not resisting arrest not the same as voluntary surrender

c) running amuck is not mitigating

 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from:

a) moral attributes of the offender

Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. Only Juan will be entitled to
Mitigating Circumstance
b) private relations with the offended party
Example: Juan stole his brother’s watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it was stolen. The circumstance of
relation arose from private relation of Juan and the brother. Does not mitigate Pedro.
c) other personal cause
Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by, helped the minor. Circumstance of
minority, mitigates liability of minor only.
 Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the
circumstances are attendant.
 Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating

a) mistake in the blow

b) mistake in the identity of the victim

c) entrapment of the accused

d) accused is over 18 years old

e) performance of a righteous action

Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminally liable
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 Definition – Those circumstance which raise the penalty for a crime without exceeding the maximum
applicable to that crime.
 Basis: The greater perversity of the offense as shown by:

a) the motivating power behind the act

b) the place where the act was committed

c) the means and ways used

d) the time

e) the personal circumstance of the offender

f) the personal circumstance of the victim

 Kinds:

a) Generic – generally applicable to all crimes

b) Specific – apply only to specific crimes (ignominy – for chastity crimes; treachery – for persons crimes)

c) Qualifying – those that change the nature of the crime (evident premeditation – becomes murder)
d) Inherent – necessarily accompanies the commission of the crime (evident premeditation in theft, estafa)

QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Gives the proper and exclusive name, places the

author thereof in such a situation as to deserve
no other penalty than that specifically prescribed Increase penalty to the maximum, without
by law exceeding limit prescribed by law

Can’t be offset by Mitigating Circumstance May be compensated by Mitigating Circumstance

Need not be alleged. May be proved over the

Must be alleged in the information. Integral part objection of the defense. Qualifying if not
of the offense alleged will make it generic

 Aggravating Circumstances which DO NOT have the effect of increasing the penalty:

1) which themselves constitute a crime specifically punishable by law or which are included in the law defining
a crime and prescribing the penalty thereof

Example: breaking a window to get inside the house and rob it

2) aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof

Example: evident premeditation inherent in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage
 Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to
increase the penalty.
Art 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
 Requisites:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. The commission of the crime would not have been possible without the powers, resources and influence of
the office he holds.
 Essential – Public officer used the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means
by which he realized his purpose.
 Failure in official is tantamount to abusing of office
 Wearing of uniform is immaterial – what matters is the proof that he indeed took advantage of his position
1. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
 Requisites:
1. The offender knows that a public authority is present
2. The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
3. The public authority is not the victim of the crime
4. The public authority’s presence did not prevent the criminal act
 Example: Juan and Pedro are quarrelling and the municipal mayor, upon passing by, attempts to stop them.
Notwithstanding the intervention and the presence of the mayor, Juan and Pedro continue to quarrel until
Juan succeeds in killing Pedro.
  Person in authority – public authority who is directly vested with jurisdiction, has the power to govern and
execute the laws
 Examples of Persons in Authority
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
 Rule not applicable when committed in the presence of a mere agent.
 Agent – subordinate public officer charged with the maintenance of public order and protection and
security of life and property
Example: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
1. 3. That the act be committed:
(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, (c)
sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
 circumstances (rank, age, sex) may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, it
cannot be invoked in crimes against property
 Rank – refers to a high social position or standing by which to determine one’s pay and emoluments in any
scale of comparison within a position
 Age – the circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in case where the victim is of tender age as
well as of old age
 Sex – refers to the female sex, not to the male sex; not applicable when
1. The offender acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
2. there exists a relation between the offender and the victim (but in cases of divorce decrees where there is
a direct bearing on their child, it is applicable)
3. the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime (Ex. Parricide, rape,
abduction)
 Requisite of disregard to rank, age, or sex
1. Crimes must be against the victim’s person or his honor
2. There is deliberate intent to offend or insult the respect due to the victim’s rank, age, or sex
 Disregard to rank, age, or sex is absorbed by treachery or abuse of strength
 Dwelling – must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort (combination house and
store not included)
1. may be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers
2. basis for this is the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode
 dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the enclosure under the house
 Elements of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
1. Crime occurred in the dwelling of the victim
2. No provocation on the part of the victim
 Requisites for Provocation: ALL MUST CONCUR
1. given by the owner of the dwelling
 2. sufficient
3. immediate to the commission of the crime

When dwelling may and may not be considered

When it may be considered When it may not be considered

 although the offender fired the shot from

outside the house, as long as his victim was
inside
 even if the killing took place outside the
dwelling, so long as the commission began
inside the dwelling
 when adultery is committed in the dwelling of
the husband, even if it is also the dwelling of
the wife, it is still aggravating because she
and her paramour committed a grave offense
to the head of the house
 In robbery with violence against persons,
robbery with homicide, abduction, or illegal
detention
 If the offended party has given provocation
 If both the offender and the offended party
are occupants of the same dwelling
 In robbery with force upon things, it is
inherent 

4. That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious ungratefulness
Requisites of Abuse of Confidence Requisite of Obvious Ungratefulness

a) ungratefulness must be obvious, that is, there

a) Offended party has trusted the offender must be something which the offender should owe
the victim a debt of gratitude for
b) Offender abused such trust
Note: robbery or theft committed by a visitor in the
c) Abuse of confidence facilitated the house of the offended party is aggravated by obvious
commission of the crime ungratefulness

 Example: A jealous lover, already determined to kill his sweetheart, invited her for a ride and during that
ride, he stabbed her
 Abuse of confidence is inherent in:
1. malversation
2. qualified theft
3. estafa by conversion
4. misappropriation
5. qualified seduction
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or when public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.

 Requirements of the aggravating circumstance of public office:

 A polling precinct is a public office during election day
 Nature of public office should be taken into account, like a police station which is on duty 24 hrs. a day
 place of the commission of the felony (par 5): if it is Malacañang palace or a church is aggravating,
regardless of whether State or official; functions are being held.
 as regards other places where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be
some performance of public functions
 the offender must have intention to commit a crime when he entered the place
 Requisites for aggravating circumstances for place of worship:
1. The crime occurred in the public office
2. Public authorities are actually performing their public duties
1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of religion
2. Offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of worship

When Paragraph 2 and 5 of Article 14 are applicable

Committed in contempt of Public Authority

Committed in the presence of the Chief

Executive, in the Presidential Palace or a place (Par. 2, Art 14)
of worship(Par. 5, Art. 14)

Public authorities are performing of their duties

when the crime is committed Same

When crime is committed in the public office,

the officer must be performing his duties, except
in the Presidential Palace Outside the office (still performing duty)

Public authority may be the offended party Public authority is not be the offended party

6a. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited place (3) by a band, whenever
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
 Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or By a Bang Aggravating when:
 Impunity – means to prevent the accused’s being recognized or to secure himself against detection
or punishment
 Nighttime begins at the end of dusk and ending at dawn; from sunset to sunrise
 Uninhabited Place – one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town,
where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other
1. it facilitated the commission of the crime
2. especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
3. when the offender took the advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
4. commission of the crime must have began and accomplished at nighttime
1. commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime
2. when the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating
3. absorbed by Treachery
Requisites:
1. The place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime
2. Deliberately sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the crime
3. Taken advantage of for the purpose of impunity
 what should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the offense, there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help
6b. – Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
 Requisites:
 if one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band because it is
undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation,
 Band is inherent in robbery committed in band and brigandage
 It is not considered in the crime of rape
 It has been applied in treason and in robbery with homicide
1. Facilitated the commission of the crime
2. Deliberately sought
3. Taken advantage of for the purposes of impunity
4. There must be four or more armed men

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune

 Requisites:
1. Committed when there is a calamity or misfortune
1. Conflagration
2. Shipwreck
3. Epidemic
2. Offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such misfortune
 Basis: Commission of the crime adds to the suffering by taking advantage of the misfortune.
 based on time
 offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune

Distinction between Paragraphs 7 and 12 of Article 14

Committed during a calamity or misfortune Committed with the use of wasteful means

Crime is committed BY using fire, inundation,

Crime is committed DURING any of the calamities explosion or other wasteful means

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men or (2) persons who insure or afford impunity
 based on the means and ways
 Requisites:
 Exceptions:
1. that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly
2. that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
1. when both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed
 2. not present when the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the crime
acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
3. Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of any of their aid nor did not knowingly count
upon their assistance in the commission of the crime

WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN BY A BAND

Requires more than 3 armed malefactors who

Present even if one of the offenders merely all acted together in the commission of an
relied on their aid. Actual aid is not necessary offense

 if there are more than 3 armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in the employment of a band.
9. That the accused is a recidivist
 Recidivist – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC
 Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown by his inclination to commit crimes
 Requisites:
 What is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of the offense. At the time of
the trial means from the arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
 When does judgment become final? (Rules of Court)
 Example of Crimes embraced in the Same title of the RPC
 Q: The accused was prosecuted and tried for theft, robbery and estafa. Judgments were read on the same
day. Is he a recidivist?
1. offender is on trial for an offense
2. he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC
4. the offender is convicted of the new offense
1. after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal
2. when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
3. defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal
4. the accused has applied for probation
1. robbery and theft – title 10
2. homicide and physical injuries – title 8

A: No. Because the judgment in any of the first two offenses was not yet final when he was tried for the third
offense

 Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and
second felonies
 Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty extinguishes the penalty
and its effects
 To prove recidivism, it must be alleged in the information and with attached certified copies of the
sentences rendered against the accused
 Exceptions: if the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession and on the witness stand.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty

 Reiteracion or Habituality – it is essential that the offender be previously punished; that is, he has served
sentence.
 Par. 10 speaks of penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually imposed

REITERACION RECIDIVISM

Necessary that offender shall have served out his Enough that final judgment has been rendered
sentence for the first sentence in the first offense

Previous and subsequent offenses must not be

embraced in the same title of the Code Same title

Not always an aggravating circumstance Always aggravating

 4 Forms of Repetition
 Habitual Delinquency – when a person within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
 Quasi-Recidivism – any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony
1. Recidivism – generic
2. Reiteracion or Habituality – generic
3. Multiple recidivism or Habitual delinquency – extraordinary aggravating
4. Quasi-Recidivism – special aggravating
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
 Requisites:
1. At least 2 principals

1. The principal by inducement

2. The principal by direct participation

2. the price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the commission of the criminal
act
 Applicable to both principals.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding a vessel or
intentional damage thereto, or derailment of a locomotive, or by use of any other artifice involving great
waste or ruin.
 Requisite: The wasteful means were used by the offender to accomplish a criminal purpose
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation
 Essence of premeditation: the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive
at a calm judgment
  Requisites:
 Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation
 When victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. Although it is not necessary
that there is a plan to kill a particular person for premeditation to exist (e.g. plan to kill first 2 persons one
meets, general attack on a village…for as long as it was planned)
 The premeditation must be based upon external facts, and must be evident, not merely suspected
indicating deliberate planning
 Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, theft, estafa, falsification, and etc.
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
3. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
14. That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed
 Craft – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.

It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime (e.g. accused pretended to be members of the
constabulary, accused in order to perpetrate rape, used chocolates containing drugs)

 Fraud –involves insidious words or machinations used to induce victim to act in a manner which would
enable the offender to carry out his design.
 as distinguished from craft which involves acts done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim,
fraud involves a direct inducement through entrapping or beguiling language or machinations
 Disguise – resorting to any device to conceal identity. Purpose of concealing identity is a must.

Distinction between Craft, Fraud, and Disguise

Craft Fraud Disguise

Involves the use of intellectual Involves the use of direct

trickery and cunning to arouse inducement by insidious words or Involves the use of devise
suspicion of the victim machinations to conceal identity

 Requisite: The offender must have actually taken advantage of craft, fraud, or disguise to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
 Inherent in: estafa and falsification.
15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means be employed to weaken the defense
 To purposely use excessive force out of the proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked.
 Requisite of Means to Weaken Defense
 To weaken the defense – illustrated in the case where one struggling with another suddenly throws a cloak
over the head of his opponent and while in the said situation, he wounds or kills him. Other means of
weakening the defense would be intoxication or disabling thru the senses (casting dirt of sand upon
another’s eyes)
1. Superiority may arise from aggressor’s sex, weapon or number as compared to that of the victim (e.g.
accused attacked an unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men stabbed to death the female victim).
 2. No advantage of superior strength when one who attacks is overcome with passion and obfuscation or when
quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was struck while victim and accused were struggling.
3. Vs. by a band : circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is taken into account is not the number of
aggressors nor the fact that they are armed but their relative physical might vis-à-vis the offended party
1. Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the assault
2. The means used must not totally eliminate possible defense of the victim, otherwise it will fall under
treachery
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
 TREACHERY: when the offender commits any of the crime against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
 Requisites:
 Treachery – can’t be considered when there is no evidence that the accused, prior to the moment of the
killing, resolved to commit to crime, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was the result of
meditation, calculation or reflection.
 Examples: victim asleep, half-awake or just awakened, victim grappling or being held, stacks from behind
 But treachery may exist even if attack is face-to-face – as long as victim was not given any chance to
prepare defense
1. that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself
2. that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him
1. does not exist if the accused gave the deceased chance to prepare or there was warning given or that it
was preceded by a heated argument
2. there is always treachery in the killing of child
3. generally characterized by the deliberate and sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from behind,
without any warning and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN

TREACHERY STRENGTH DEFENSE

Means, methods or forms are Offender does not employ

employed by the offender to means, methods or forms of Means are employed but it only
make it impossible or hard for attack, he only takes materially weakens the
the offended party to put any advantage of his superior resisting power of the offended
sort of resistance strength party

 Where there is conspiracy, treachery is considered against all the offenders

 Treachery absorbs abuse of strength, aid of armed men, by a band and means to weaken the defense

17. That the means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
acts

 IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime

Applicable to crimes against chastity (rape included), less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion and
murder
  Requisites:
 Examples: accused embraced and kissed the offended party not out of lust but out of anger in front of
many people, raped in front of the husband, raped successively by five men
 tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating
 Ignominy not present where the victim was already dead when such acts were committed against his body
or person
1. Crime must be against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder
2. The circumstance made the crime more humiliating and shameful for the victim
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry
 Unlawful entry – when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose. Meant to effect
entrance and NOT exit.
 Why aggravating? One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property and
provide for their personal safety, shows greater perversity, a greater audacity and hence the law punishes
him with more severity
 Example: Rapist gains entrance thru the window
 Inherent in: Trespass to dwelling, robbery with force upon things, and robbery with violence or intimidation
against persons.
19. That as a means to the commission of the crime, a wall, roof, door or window be broken
 Requisites:
 Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect entrance.
 Breaking is lawful in the following instances:
1. A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
2. They were broken to effect entrance
1. an officer in order to make an arrest may break open a door or window of any building in which the person
to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be;
2. an officer if refused admittance may break open any door or window to execute the search warrant or
liberate himself,

20. That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of age, or (2) by means of motor
vehicles, airships or other similar means.

 Reason for #1: to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by professional criminals to
avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their responsibility (remember that minors are given
leniency when they commit a crime)
Example: Juan instructed a 14-year old to climb up the fence and open the gate for him so that he may rob the
house
 Reason for #2: to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to commit crime
and flee and abscond once the same is committed. Necessary that the motor vehicle be an important tool
to the consummation of the crime (bicycles not included)
Example: Juan and Pedro, in committing theft, used a truck to haul the appliances from the mansion.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission
  Cruelty: when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. Cruelty cannot be presumed nor merely
inferred from the body of the deceased. Has to be proven.
1. mere plurality of words do not show cruelty
2. no cruelty when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead
 Requisites:
1. that the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
2. that the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
IGNOMINY CRUELTY

Moral suffering – subjected to humiliation Physical suffering

Art 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be
taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when
the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the
plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
 Alternative Circumstances – those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission.
 They are:
1. relationship – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender
2. intoxication – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the state of intoxication, if the same
is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the said felony. Aggravating if habitual or intentional
3. degree of instruction and education of the offender
RELATIONSHIP

Mitigating Circumstance Aggravating Circumstance

In crimes against persons – in cases where the

offender, or when the offender and the offended
party are relatives of the same level, as killing a
brother, adopted brother or half-brother.

In crimes against property (robbery, usurpation, Always aggravating in crimes against chastity.
fraudulent insolvency, arson)

Exception: Art 332 of CC – no criminal liability,

civil liability only for the crimes of theft,
 swindling or malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
descendants or relatives by affinity (also
brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law
if living together). It becomes an EXEMPTING
circumstance.

 Relationship neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an element of the offense.

Example: parricide, adultery, concubinage.

INTOXICATION

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

a) if intoxication is habitual – such habit must

a) if intoxication is not habitual be actual and confirmed

b) if intoxication is not subsequent to the plan b) if its intentional (subsequent to the plan to
to commit a felony commit a felony)

 Must show that he has taken such quantity so as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control
 A habitual drunkard is given to inebriety or the excessive use of intoxicating drinks.
 Habitual drunkenness must be shown to be an actual and confirmed habit of the offender, but not
necessarily of daily occurrence.
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Low degree of instruction education or the lack

of it. Because he does not fully realize the High degree of instruction and education –
consequences of his criminal act. Not just mere offender avails himself of his learning in
illiteracy but lack of intelligence. committing the offense.

 Determined by: the court must consider the circumstance of lack of instruction
 Exceptions (not mitigating):
1. crimes against property
2. crimes against chastity (rape included)
3. crime of treason
Art 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.

2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
 Accessories – not liable for light felonies because the individual prejudice is so small that penal sanction is
not necessary
 Only natural persons can be criminals as only they can act with malice or negligence and can be
subsequently deprived of liberty. Juridical persons are liable under special laws.
 Manager of a partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his direct participation in the crime.
 Corporations may be the injured party
 General Rule: Corpses and animals have no rights that may be injured.
 Exception: defamation of the dead is punishable when it blackens the memory of one who is dead.