MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES are those which, if present in the commission of the

crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce
the penalty.
> One single fact cannot be made the basis of more than one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a
mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact, absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances
arising from the same fact.

BASIS: Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity
of the offender.
CLASSES:
ORDINARY
PRIVILEGED

Par 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRUMSTANCES

> Applies, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability
are NOT attendant.
> It is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of the elements
required to justify or exempt are present.
> But in the case of “incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a stranger,”
unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.

Par 2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD

> It is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be
determined. His age at the time of trial is immaterial.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER

15 and below – exempting

Privileged mitigating circumstance
Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment – But even with discernment,
penalty is reduced by one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art 68, par 2, amended by RA
9344)
Minor delinquent under 18 years of age – sentence suspended (Art 192, PD 603 as amended by
PD 1179, referred to as Children in Conflict with the Law under RA 9344).
Child in Conflict with the Law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or being adjudged
as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
18 years or over – full criminal responsibility
70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death penalty if already imposed execution of
death penalty is suspended and committed

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence

Par 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (Praeter Intentionem)

> Offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong

> Disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the consequences produced
Rule for the application:
Can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
> Intention may be ascertained by considering:
(a) The weapon used
(b) The part of the body injured
(c) The injury inflicted
(d) The manner it is inflicted
> Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
> Not applicable to felonies where intention is immaterial.
> Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery (Reyes).

BASIS: Lack or diminution of intent

Par 4. PROVOCATION OR THREAT

PROVOCATION is understood as any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party,
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.

REQUISITES:
(1) The provocation must be sufficient.
> Sufficient means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be
proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil 434, 435)
> Depends on:
(a) The act constituting the provocation
(b) The social standing of the person provoked
(c) The place and time when the provocation is made
(2) It must originate from the offended party.
(3) The provocation must be personal and directed at the accused.
(4) The provocation must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked.
> The threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict real
injury is an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense.
BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

Par 5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF RELATIVES OR HIMSELF or VINDICATION OF GRAVE

OFFENSE

REQUISITES:
(1) That there must be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony; his spouse;
ascendants; descendants; legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.
> “Immediate” allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender is
still suffering from the mental agony brought by the offense to him.

To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the following must be

considered:
(1) Social standing of the person
(2) Time when the insult was made
(3) Place where the insult was made
(4) Sometimes, even the age is considered

BASIS: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness

Par 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

> The infliction of injury must be immediate from the act that caused passion or obfuscation.

ELEMENTS:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse.
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation.
REQUISITES:
(1) That here be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
(2) That 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.
> The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating.
> May lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender.

BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower.

Passion or Obfuscation is NOT mitigating when committed:

(1) In the spirit of lawlessness
(2) In the spirit of revenge

Passion or obfuscation cannot CO-EXIST with:

(1) Vindication of grave offense
(2) Treachery

Par 7. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF GUILT

TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
(2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
> If both are present in the same case they have the effect of two independent circumstances
(People vs. Fontalba, 61 Phil 589) and in the absence of aggravating circumstances, they will
reduce divisible penalties by one degree (Art 64[5]).

REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:

(1) That the offender had not been actually arrested
(2) That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agents
> Person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is the power to govern and
execute the laws, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board or commission.
> Agent of a person in authority is one who by direct provision of the law or by 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 (Art 152 as amended by RA 1978).
(3) That the surrender was voluntary.
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit
himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because:
(1) He acknowledges his guilt.
(2) He wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in the search and
capture.

REQUISITES FOR VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY:

(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.
(3) That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
> Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when with the consent of
the public prosecutor, there is an amendment in the information.
> Voluntary confession is usually done during the arraignment.
> What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can already be rendered
but both sides can still present evidence to prove aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
> During arraignment, charges must be read to the accused in open court in a language known
to him; if the charges are read in a language not known to him, the arraignment or plea is void. It
is the duty of courts to read charges in a language known to him.
> Promulgation is physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused. It can be limited to
just the dispositive portion or “wherefore” clause. If there is an acquittal, the decision is final and
executory and not appealable because of the risk of double jeopardy (People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95
Phil 475). If there is a conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal remedies, if not
availed after the said period, the conviction becomes final and executor.
REASON: Plea of guilty is an act of repentance and respect for law; it indicates a moral
disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform.
BASIS: Lesser perversity of the offender

Par 8. PHYSICAL DEFECT OF THE OFFENDER

> When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or communication with other
> The physical defect must relate to the offense committed. E.g. blindness does not mitigate
estafa

BASIS: Offender does not have complete freedom of action; diminution of freedom and
voluntariness

Par 9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

REQUISITES:
(1) That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his willpower.
(2) That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
> Includes illness of the mind not amounting to insanity.

BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

Par 10. SIMILAR ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

EXAMPLES:
(1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
(2) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty.
(3) Over 60 years old will failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age under par 2.
Insuperable Cause – some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically prevented
a person to do what the law commands.

Elements:

1. an act is required by law to be done

2. a person fails to perform such act
3. his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful insuperable cause

Absolutory causes – where the act committed is a crime, but for some reason of public policy
and sentiment, there is not penalty imposed. Exempting and justifying circumstances are
absolutory causes.
Examples:
1. spontaneous desistance in Article 6
2. no available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
Uncontrollable Fear – offender employs intimidation or threat compelling another to
commit a crime

Duress – use of violence or physical force. For it to be a valid defense, it should be real,
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life and limb, it should not be inspired by speculative,
fanciful or remote fear. A threat of future injury is not enough

Elements:

1. 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. It promises an evil such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would have succumbed
to it.

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus – any act dine by me against my will is not my act

PEOPLE V REGATO GR No. L36750

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MIGUEL REGATO and JOSE SALCEDA, defendants-appellants.

**Title: People of the Philippines vs. Miguel Regato and Jose Salceda**

**Facts:**

On the evening of November 22, 1969, three individuals approached the house of Victor Flores in
sitio Macaranas, Bo. Capirawa, Palo, Leyte, simulating interest in buying cigarettes to gain entry.
Felicisima Flores, wife of Victor, opened the door to recognize the visitors, lifting a small kerosene
lamp. Miguel Regato, one of the visitors, struck her hand, causing the lamp to fall and pointed a
gun at her, which made her flee to a neighbor’s house.

Inside the house, the robbers began to take action. Rito Ramirez and Miguel Regato dragged
Victor Flores downstairs while Jose Salceda detained Victor’s son, Florencio, inside the house. As
Victor was being maltreated to reveal the location of their money, Salceda ransacked a trunk in
the bedroom and found P870. Ramirez and Regato hit Victor Flores brutally, eventually resulting
in Ramirez shooting Victor after he called them “robbers.”

Felicisima Flores returned with help to find her husband bleeding inside the house, and the chaos
as indication of the robbery. Victor was taken midday to Leyte Provincial Hospital but succumbed
to his injuries the next day. An affidavit from Felicisima (Exhibit F) and a formal statement from
Victor preceded their investigations. Salceda was identified and apprehended on November 26,
followed by the arrest of Regato. Rito Ramirez, however, remained at large.

**Procedural Posture:**

The case proceeded with only Regato and Salceda, both denying their involvement, presenting
alibis and denying presence at the crime scene. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial
based on an affidavit from Regato and found them guilty of robbery with homicide, sentencing
them to death. They then filed an appeal.

**Issues:**

1. Did the trial court err in denying Salceda’s motion for a new trial and not acquitting him? 2.
Was Regato’s conviction for robbery with homicide instead of simple robbery erroneous? 3.
Should the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit a grave wrong be considered?

4. Was the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity correctly applied?

5. Should the aggravating circumstance of craft absorb nocturnity?

**Court’s Decision:**

1. **Motion for New Trial and Acquittal of Salceda**: The Supreme Court found no merit in the
denial of a new trial based on Regato’s affidavit, considering it as forgotten evidence
rather than newly discovered. It was deemed insincere and contradicted by eyewitness
accounts.
2. **Conviction for Robbery with Homicide**: The court affirmed that the killing was
committed due to or on the occasion of the robbery, thereby justifying the special complex
crime rather than simple robbery. Despite the shooting occurring after the robbery, the
crime was considered part of a continuous act of violence related to the robbery.
3. **Lack of Intent to Commit Grave Wrong**: The court ruled this mitigating circumstance
inapplicable, concluding that the appellants’ deliberate actions inferred intentional fatal
consequences.
4. **Nocturnity**: The evidence supported that the crime’s commission past 9 p.m.
showcased its facilitation by the night’s concealment, thus validating nocturnity as an
aggravating circumstance.
5. **Craft and Nocturnity**: The supreme court upheld the use of craft as an aggravating
circumstance, referencing the deception used by appellants to gain entry under the
pretext of buying cigarettes and citing similar cases.

The court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to insufficient votes for a
death sentence.

PEOPLE V PAGAL

G.R. No. L-32040 October 25, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PEDRO PAGAL y MARCELINO and JOSE TORCELINO y TORAZO, defendants-appellants.

Mitigating Circumstances raised:

- Provocation by the victim

Not applicable. Provocation, in order to be a mitigating circumstance, must be sufficient
and immediately preceding the act.
- Circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation
Not applicable. For the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation, the accused
must have acted upon an impulse that is so powerful or overwhelming that it naturally
produced passion or obfuscation clouding his/her judgment.

PEOPLE V CAÑETE [G.R. No. 138366. September 11, 2003.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RUBEN CAÑETE (deceased), ALFREDO

CAÑETE, SERGIO CAÑETE (deceased), TRINIDAD CAÑETE and SOTERO CAÑETE
(deceased), Appellants.

Facts:

People v. Cañete

G.R. No. 138366 (September 11, 2003)

Alfredo, Trinidad, and Sergio CaAete received reclusion perpetua for the murder of Leonaldo
Tumayao, confirmed by multiple eyewitness accounts of their coordinated attack. The
Supreme Court upheld the conviction, highlighting witness credibility and the defendants'
established conspiracy.

Facts:

On June 27, 1997, an Information was filed against Ruben, Alfredo, Sergio, Trinidad, and
Sotero CaAete for the murder of Leonaldo Tanjay Tumayao, occurring on May 24, 1997, in
Liloan, Cebu. The charge alleged that the accused conspired with intent to kill, employing
superior strength, treachery, and evident premeditation.

Ruben and Sotero died before trial; however, Alfredo, Trinidad, and Sergio pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution's narrative held that on the day of the incident, Tumayao was walking home
from a wedding with friends when he was ambushed and shot multiple times by the accused,
who were armed. Witnesses Quimod and Tundag observed the shooting. They testified that
Tumayao was shot first while standing up and then shot again while on the ground at Alfredo's
command. Tumayao died from multiple shotgun wounds, confirmed by the medico-legal
officer's autopsy report, which indicated five fatal pellet wounds.
The defense offered a different account, asserting that Tumayao had attacked Ruben first by
throwing a punch after an altercation, prompting Ruben to shoot Tumayao in self-defense.
Defense witnesses claimed that Tumayao followed Ruben to his house and fired shots at him.
Some defense testimonies stated that while other family members were present, they were
not involved in the shooting.

The trial court ultimately found Alfredo, Trinidad, and Sergio guilty of murder and sentenced
them to reclusion perpetua, along with awarding the victim’s heirs damages.

Legal Issues:

1. Was there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for murder against the appellants?

2. Was the defense of self-defense presented by the appellants compelling enough to negate
the elements of murder?

3. Were the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery established?

4. Were the mitigating circumstances adequately considered in determining the penalties?

Arguments:

Prosecution Arguments:

 Eyewitnesses provided consistent and credible testimonies identifying the appellants as

the assailants who acted together to kill Tumayao.

 The manner of the killing, including the ambush and multiple shots fired at Tumayao while
he was down, demonstrated the malice and intent to kill characteristic of murder.

 The existence of multiple spent bullets supported the prosecution's claim of a coordinated
attack.

Defense Arguments:

 The defense criticized the reliability of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses, claiming they had
motives against the appellants, resulting in biased testimonies.

 The events leading up to Tumayao's shooting were framed as an act of self-defense

following provocation from Tumayao, arguing that this negated the elements of murder.

 There were alleged inconsistencies in witness statements regarding who shot and the type
of weapon used, questioning the prosecution's claims of a premeditated plan.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the prosecution had adequately
established the elements of murder. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses were deemed
credible and largely consistent, notwithstanding minor discrepancies. The court rejected the
defense argument of self-defense, noting that the actions leading to Tumayao's death
exhibited aggression beyond what could be justified as immediate reaction.

The court found evidence supporting the existence of treachery due to the sudden attack that
left Tumayao unable to defend himself. However, the court ruled that evident premeditation
was not sufficiently proven, as the attack was a spontaneous reaction to provocation. The
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender for Alfredo were acknowledged, contributed
to a lesser penalty.

The court modified the damages awarded, ensuring that actual damages were substantiated
by evidence.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. Credibility of Witness Testimony: The assessment made by trial courts of witness

credibility is given substantial weight in appellate review; unless compelling reasons exist
to reassess, their findings are upheld.
 2. Conspiracy in Criminal Liability: Conspiracy can be inferred from the collective acts of
individuals before, during, and after the crime, meaning the act of one conspirator is an
act for all.

3. Treachery as an Aggravating Circumstance: Treachery involves an unexpected attack

that deprives the victim of an opportunity to defend themselves, which can elevate simple
homicide to murder.

4. Mitigating Circumstances: The presence of provocation and evidence of immediate

retaliatory acts may mitigate culpability, although this was not sufficient to reduce a
murder charge to a lesser offense.

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF RELATIVES OR HIMSELF or VINDICATION OF GRAVE

OFFENSE

REQUISITES:
(1) That there must be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony; his spouse;
ascendants; descendants; legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.
> “Immediate” allows a lapse of time unlike in sufficient provocation, as long as the offender
is still suffering from the mental agony brought by the offense to him.

Plea Of Guilty To A Lesser Offense

Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. – At arraignment, the accused, with

the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial
court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty.
No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IF THERE IS A PLEA TO A LESSER OFFENSE? WHEN CAN

THE ACCUSED PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE?

> During arraignment

1. Offended party and prosecutor must be present

2. Lesser offense must necessarily be included in the original offense charged

3. Offended party and prosecutor must consent to such plea

4. If offended party is absent despite due notice, the court may allow accused to plead to a
lesser offense

> After arraignment and before trial

1. Withdraw the plea of not guilty

2. Private offended party and prosecutor must give consent to the plea to lesser offense
3. If private offended party is absent despite due notice, court may allow accused to plea
to lesser offense
4. Enter plea for the lesser offense

> When the penalty imposable for the offense is at least 6 years and 1 day or a fine
exceeding P12000, the prosecutor must first submit his recommendation to the
City or Provincial or the Chief State Prosecutor for approval. If the
recommendation is approved, the trial prosecutor may then consent to the
plea of guilty to a lesser offense.

WHEN CAN THE PLEA OF GUILTY BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE?

It is mitigating if voluntarily done before the prosecution starts to present evidence.