MARLO C.

MANUEL
L-1900166
SEATWORK IN CRIMINAL LAW I
24 AUGUST 2019

1. Enumerate and discuss extensively the elements that must be established by the
accused in order for the court to appreciate in his/her favor the circumstances
under Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ans.:

Art. 11 - Justifying Circumstance

The following elements must be established by the accused. There must be enough, clear and
convincing evidence; must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution:

Par 1. Self-Defense
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.

Elements of Self-defense:
1. Unlawful Aggression– is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it is either
actual or imminent. The aggression must be either actual or imminent.
a) Actual aggression – Actual or real aggression presupposes an means an attack with
physical force or with a weapon which shows the positive determination of the aggressor
to cause damage or injury. There must be real danger to life a personal safety.
b) 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. It is not
required that an attack already begins for it may be too late.
c) 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.
d) 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.
 A mere threatening or intimidating attitude not preceded by outward and material
aggression is not unlawful aggression.
 The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non and there can be no self-
defense complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself.

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

This requisite presupposes the existence of an unlawful aggression. Means were used by
the accused to prevent or repel such unlawful aggression. The means used must be
necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it. The means must be reasonable
depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to the force of the aggressor. A
threat to inflict real injury places a person in imminent danger while an actual physical
assault places a person in actual danger. Hence, the phrases used in the provision is “to
prevent” or “to repel”.

a) 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.
b) The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private
person, cannot run away.
c) The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.
d) 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.
e) 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.

a) When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
b) 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.
c) When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself.
d) When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not
proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.
 e) Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one
to its commission.

Par. 2 - Defense of Relative

Relatives that can be defended:
1. Spouse;
2. Ascendants;
3. Descendants;
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity if the same
degree; and
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
The death of the spouse does not terminate the relationship by affinity established between
the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased.

Elements of Defense of Relative:

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.

The first tow requisites or elements are the same as those of self- defense.

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.

Par. 3 - Defense of Stranger

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.

The first tow requisites or elements are the same as those of self- defense.

The third element – the law requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a
disinterested or generous motive. The person defending must not be induced by evil motive
means that even an enemy of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a stranger may
invoke this justifying circumstance so long as he is not induced by a motive that is evil.
 Rationale behind is that an ordinary person would not stand idly by and see his companion
killed without any attempt by him to save his life.

A stranger is any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under Par. 2 Art 11. A
blood relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.

A person defending his common-law wife or adopted child will fall into this paragraph.

Par. 4 - State of Necessity

Art. 11, Par. 4 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:

1. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
2. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
3. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and

a. 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.

b. 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.

Par. 5 - Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office

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.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s death.

Par. 6 - Obedience to a Superior Order

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.

a. 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.

b. 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.

c. The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.

d. 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.

Article 12 – Exempting Circumstance

 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.

Under Article 12, the following are exempt from criminal liability:
Par. 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. The offender is an imbecile
2. The 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. 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.
 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. 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.
 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 Malignant Malaria it affects the nervous system and causes among others such
complication as acute melancholia and insanity at times, and if clearly proven will be
considered as an exempting circumstance under this paragraph.

Instances of Insanity:
a. 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.
b. Relova: Feeblemindedness is imbecility.
c. Crimes committed while in a dream, by a somnambulist are embraced in the plea of
insanity. Hypnotism, however, is a debatable issue.
d. Crime committed while suffering from malignant malaria is characterized by insanity at
times thus such person is not criminally liable.

Two tests of insanity:

1. Test of Cognition - complete deprivation of intelligence in committing a crime.
2. Test of Volition – Total deprivation of freedom of the will.

Basis: complete absence of intelligence, and element of voluntariness.

Par. 2 and 3 - Minority

Minority - Under fifteen (15) years to be construed fifteen years or less. Such was inferred from
the next subsequent paragraph which does not totally exempt those over fifteen years of age if he
acted with discernment.
The 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:

 The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below
 The age of conditional responsibility – 15 yrs. and 1 day to 18 yrs.
 The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over to 70 years
 The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 yrs. And 1 day to 18 yr., the offender must act with
discernment; over 70 years of age.

Requisite: Offender is under 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. There is
absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 15-years of age.

Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence.

3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, 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.

Par. 4 – Accident without fault or intention of causing it

Accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway or will, although it comes about through
some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Basis: lack of negligence and intent.

Elements:
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.
Example:
 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.

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

Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness

Elements:
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.

 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.
 In the case of 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.
Par. 6 - Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.

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
which 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”

Par. 7 - Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
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:
a. Priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him
b. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
c. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to die
– not liable for infanticide
d. 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)
Article 13- Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigating circumstances are those 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:

Par 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance

Justifying circumstances
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 15 and under 18 – if minor acted with discernment, considered mitigating

Example: 16 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 second 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

Par 2. Over 15 and under 18, acting without discernment, or over 70 years of age.

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. A child above 15 but below 18 shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability unless he acted with discernment.

Basis: Diminution of intelligence

Par 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
(praeter intentionem)

 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

Par. 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:
I Provocation must be sufficient.
a. . Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.

b. . Sufficiency depends on:

i. the act constituting the provocation

ii. the social standing of the person provoked
iii. time and place provocation took place

Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. There’s mitigating
circumstance because of sufficient provocation.

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

II It must originate from the offended party

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

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.

b. Provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating
c. 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.
III Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person
who is provoked

 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.
 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

Par. 5 Vindication of grave offense

Elements:

1. That there’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed
between the vindication and the one doing the offense (proximate time, not just immediately
after)

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

 More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. Such is
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

Par. 6 Passion or obfuscation

Elements:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind
2. That the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity
3. The act causing such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself

 There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of passion and obfuscation 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 with passion and obfuscation.

Par. 7 – Voluntary surrender and voluntary confession of guilt.

Two mitigating circumstances:

1. Voluntary surrender to a person of authority or his agent
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
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
 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
Requisites for voluntary 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

Par. 8 Physical defect of offender

 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.

Par. 9 Illness of the offender

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

Par. 10 Similar or analogous circumstances

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
2. Provide a case digest for one decided case on each of the justifying, exempting and
mitigating circumstances. Make sure that the case that you will be summarizing is not
included in the syllabus provided to you earlier.

Self-defense (Justifying)
US vs Laurel
GR No 7037 22 PHIL 252
15 March 1912

Facts: On the night of 26 December 1909, while Concepcion Lat was walking with his suitor
Exequiel Castillo and several male friends, Jose Laurel approached and kissed her and ran towards
his house. The male companions ran after him but did not overtook him. On 28 December when
an entertainment was going on, Laurel and Castillo gave contradicting stories as to who called
who to clarify to explain what happened two nights ago. Suffice to say, at the ground floor where
Laurel and Castillo spoke at the distance from the others, suddenly Castillo struck Laurel with his
cane twice prompting the other to stab him with a penknife. Castillo contended that after asking
him to explain for his actions against Lat, Laurel stabbed him and he was forced to defend himself.
Castillo managed to go to a nearby drugstore to had his wounds tended as he suffered serious
injuries. Court of First Instance found Laurel and his companions guilty of frustrated murder.

Issue: Whether or not Laurel and his co-defendants were guilty of a crime against Castillo.

Ruling: Judgment reversed. Laurel and his co-defendants were acquitted. The court was forced to
think that the person who would consider himself aggrieved at the kiss given to the lady is her
suitor Castillo. And it would appear a reasonable conclusion that it is Castillo who were offended
for the boldness of Laurel’s action and would demand an explanation of the offense. The invitation
coming from Castillo and by testimonies of the witnesses that it was Castillo who provoked and
commenced the assault. A person who uses a pocketknife to seriously wound him on the head with
a cane and continues to beat him employs rational means of self-defense.
Insanity (Exempting)

People vs. Donato Bascos

G.R. No. L-19605 (1922)
Facts: Donato Bascos killed Victoriano Romero while the latter is sleeping. The wife of the
accused and his cousin testified that Donato had been continuously out of his mind for years. Dr.
Gonzalo Montemayor found the accused to be a violent maniac.
Issue: Whether or not Donato is insane?
Ruling: Yes. The testimony of the wife and his cousin was corroborated by an expert witness.
Insanity in this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Uncontrollable Fear (Mitigating)

U.S. v. Exaltacion
GR No. 1481
February 17, 1904
Facts:
Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchino were charged with the crime of rebellion for
swearing allegiance to the Katipunan Society, which aimed to overthrow the Government of the
United States governing the Philippine Islands. Seized documents from the encampment of a so-
called General Contreras showed that they signed the documents and allegedly made such
allegiance.
The two, however, contend that they were captured by brigands, who compelled them to take an
oath supporting the Katipunan Society under threats of death. They produced several witnesses
which corroborated the fact of their capture and of their subsequent report to Don Tomas Testa,
municipal president of Meycauayan, who was also kidnapped.

Issue:
Whether or not fear relieved them from criminal liability of rebellion

Ruling:
Yes. The Court reversed the decision and acquitted the defendants because the documents were
insufficient to prove their guilt. Documents signed under compulsion (under threat of death) and
while in captivity relieve the two from all criminal liability from the crime of rebellion.

3. Enumerate and explain the distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating
circumstances?
ANS: Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances; if not, the it
only produces the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum
period. On the other hand, Privilege mitigating circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstances; and produces the effect imposed upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two
degrees for the crime, provided by the law.

4. May the accused invoke accidental self-defense as a justifying circumstance? Explain.

ANS: No, there is no such thing as an accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law. Self-
defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a deliberate
and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of another with the
use of reasonable means.
5. May the accused invoke Battered Woman Syndrome as a justifying circumstance?
ANS: No. According to Article 11 of the Revised Penal code, self-defense, a justifying
circumstance does not incur criminal liability, provided that the following requisites are present:
1. Unlawful Aggression
2.Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Battered woman syndrome is not a justifying circumstance in the form of self-defense, in the case
of People v. Genosa, though BWS was used as a defense, it lacked the requisite of unlawful
aggression from the husband which should consider the circumstance as a mitigating one for an
illness that diminishes the exercise of willpower of the offender without however depriving
him/her of consciousness of his/her acts.

6. Discuss the difference between entrapment and instigation.

ANS: In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan, whereas in instigation, the instigator
practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself
becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the accused; in
instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted. Where the criminal intent originates in the
mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged
in order to prosecute him, there is no entrapment and no conviction may be had.
7. What is the test in determining the validity of a buy-bust operation?
ANS: The “objective” test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported
transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between
the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the
offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug,
whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts
to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.

8. Distinguish the effect of validly proving the existence of justifying circumstance from that
of an exempting circumstance.
ANS:
In Justifying Circumstances:
The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; The act is done within legal bounds, hence
considered as not a crime; Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.

Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:

The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor
acted without voluntariness; Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is
regarded only as an instrument of the crime; There being a wrong done but no criminal.
9. In relation to Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, discuss who can invoke the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority.
ANS: Over 15 and under 18, acting without discernment

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. A child above 15 but below 18 shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. This pertains to having the requisites necessary
to exempt from criminal liability present.

10. Cite instances that are analogous to surrender and confession of guilt. Explain.
ANS: Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because: he acknowledges his guilt, or he
wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in the search and capture. That
the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the
case. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. A, a murderer, confessed in court before arraignment that he did the act with
intention.

11. The accused charged with murder offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of
homicide but such offer was rejected by the prosecutor. Trial proceeded and the court
found the accused liable only for homicide. Should the previous offer of guilt to the lesser
offense of homicide be appreciated in the imposition of penalty against said accused?
Why or why not?

ANS: No, the previous offer of guilt to a lesser of homicide cannot be appreciated, because under
the Revised Penal Code, in order that a plea of guilty may be mitigating, the three requisites must
be present: 1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt 2. That the confession of guilt
was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and 3. In the
case of People v. Lungbos the court ruled that a plea of guilty made after arraignment and/or after
trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating
circumstance. Thus, the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. In the case at bar, the prosecutor rejected the plea of the accused with the
presumption that the evidences that they have is sufficient to charge him for the crime of murder.
Upon rejection the trial began and the plea of guilty for the crime of homicide raised by the
accused will no longer be recognized.
12. Enumerate and explain five (5) other circumstances analogous to the mitigating
circumstance under paragraph 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

ANS: A. Over 60 years old with failing sight – This is analogous to the second paragraph of the
same article in the RPC which stated “… over 70 years of age.”

B. Outrage feeling of creditor – this is similar to passion and obfuscation mentioned in the
sixth paragraph of the same article. A person who killed his debtor, who tried to escape and
refused to pay his debt, is entitled to this mitigating circumstance.

C. Voluntary restitution of stolen property – this is analogous to voluntary surrender

mentioned in paragraph 7 of the same article. Voluntary restitution of a property stolen by the
accused or immediately reimbursing the amount malversed is considered a mitigating
circumstance.

D. Extreme poverty – this is similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity.

According to the ruling in the case of People v. Macbul, the right to life is more sacred than a mere
property right. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft, but merely to dull somewhat
the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life.

E. Testifying for prosecution – this is analogous to plea of guilty under paragraph 7 of

Article 13 of the RPC which stated “… that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.” The act of the accused of testifying
for the prosecution, without previous discharge, is a mitigating circumstance