Justifying Circumstances and

Circumstances which Exempt from

Criminal Liability
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

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

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the
next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had
no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that
the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article
are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive.
4. 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;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. —
The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an 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 in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

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.
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.

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

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause.
 Circumstances Which Mitigate Criminal Liability

ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are mitigating

circumstances:
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.

2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80.

3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
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 brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.

6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced

passion or obfuscation.

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

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the
offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
 Circumstances Which Aggravate Criminal Liability

ARTICLE 14. Aggravating Circumstances. — The following are aggravating

circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account of his
rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission
of an offense it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.

7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.

A recidivist is 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 this Code.

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.

11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the
use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.

13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes 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.

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

18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by
means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
 Alternative Circumstances
ARTICLE 15. 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 is 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 circumstance 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.
 Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies

ARTICLE 16. Who are Criminally Liable. — The

following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:
The following are criminally liable for light
1. Principals. felonies:

2. Accomplices. 1. Principals.

3. Accessories. 2. Accomplices.
ARTICLE 17. Principals. — The following are
considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. —

others to commit it; Accomplices are those persons who, not
being included in article 17, cooperate in
3. Those who cooperate in the the execution of the offense by previous
commission of the offense by another or simultaneous acts.
act without which it would not have
been accomplished.
ARTICLE 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take
1. By profiting part subsequent
themselves to its
or assisting thecommission in any
offender to profit byofthethe following
effects of the manners:
crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
ARTICLE 20. Accessories Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability.
— 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 single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
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
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

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.      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 1. The rule here is to stand your ground when in the
repel right which may invoked when the defender is
 Means must be necessary and unlawfully assaulted and the aggressor is armed with
there is no other way to a weapon.
prevent or repel it 2. The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace
 Means must be reasonable – officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run
depending on the
away.
circumstances, but generally
proportionate to the force of 3. The reasonable necessity of the means employed to
the aggressor. 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 3. When even if the provocation were

given to the aggressor by the person sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself. defending himself.
2. When even if provocation was 4. When even if provocation was given by
given by the person defending the person defending himself, the attack
himself, such was not sufficient to was not proximate or immediate to the
cause violent aggression on the part act of provocation.
of the attacker, i.e. the amount of 5. Sufficient means proportionate to the
provocation was not sufficient to damage caused by the act, and adequate
stir the aggressor into the acts to stir one to its commission.
which led the accused to defend
himself.
 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.
CREDITS: This presentation template was created by
3. Self-defense
Slidesgo, including iconsin libel –
by Flaticon, physical assault
and infographics
& images by Freepik
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.
4. A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of
stranger.
5. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

5. 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
Elements: 5. The subordinate’s good faith is material here.  If he
1. there is an order; obeyed an order in good faith, not being aware of its
2. the order is for a legal purpose; illegality, he is not liable.  However, the order must not be
3. the means used to carry out said patently illegal.  If the order is patently illegal this
order is lawful. circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
4. The subordinate who is made to
comply with the order is the party 6. The reason for this justifying circumstance is the
which may avail of this subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.
circumstance.  The officer giving
the order may not invoke this. 7. 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.

3. 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 –
years old mitigated liability
Between 15 and 18
years old Mitigated responsibility
Between 18 and 70
years old Full responsibility
Over 70 years old Mitigated responsibility
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.
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
4. 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 criminal, the
actor is exempted from There is no crime, the
Existence of a crime liability of his act act is justified
 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 The ways and means are resorted to for
would-be accused into the commission the purpose of trapping and capturing the
of the offense and himself becomes co- lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
principal 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
circumstance circumstance aggravating circumstance

Has the effect of imposing the penalty If not offset,  has the effect of
by 1 or 2 degrees than that provided imposing the penalty in the
Effect on the penalty by law minimum period

Minority, Incomplete Self-defense,

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

a. 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 CIRCUMSTANCES
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
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
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 Grave offense may be also
person committing the against the offender’s
felony relatives mentioned by law
Cause that brought about Offended party must have
the provocation need not done a grave offense to
be a grave offense the offender or his relatives
Necessary that provocation
or threat immediately
preceded the act. No time May be proximate. Time
interval 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
Must come from a 3rd
From the offender himself 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 lasts Must immediately precede the
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:
  Kinds:
a)      the motivating power behind
the act a)      Generic – generally applicable
to all crimes
b)      the place where the act was
committed b)      Specific – apply only to specific
crimes (ignominy – for chastity
c)      the means and ways used crimes; treachery – for persons
crimes)
d)      the time c)      Qualifying – those that change
the nature of the crime (evident
e)      the personal circumstance of premeditation – becomes murder)
the offender
d)      Inherent – necessarily
f)       the personal circumstance of accompanies the commission of the
the victim crime (evident premeditation in theft,
estafa)
 QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING GENERIC AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
Gives the proper and exclusive name, Increase penalty to the maximum,
places the author thereof in such a without exceeding limit prescribed by
situation as to deserve no other law
penalty than that specifically
prescribed by law
Can’t be offset by Mitigating May be compensated by Mitigating
Circumstance Circumstance
Need not be alleged. May be proved
over the objection of the defense.
Must be alleged in the information. Qualifying if not alleged will make it
Integral part of the offense 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.      That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position
 Requisites:
The offender is a public officer
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
2.      That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to
the public authorities
 Requisites:
The offender knows that a public authority is present
The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
The public authority is not the victim of the crime
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
Governor
Mayor
Barangay captain
Councilors
Government agents
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
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
The offender acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
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)
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
Crimes must be against the victim’s person or his honor
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)
may be temporary as in the case of guests in a house or bedspacers
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
Crime occurred in the dwelling of the victim
No provocation on the part of the victim
 Requisites for Provocation: ALL MUST CONCUR
given by the owner of the dwelling
sufficient
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

Requisite of Obvious
Requisites of Abuse of Confidence Ungratefulness
a)      ungratefulness must be obvious,
that is, there must be something which
a)      Offended party has trusted the
the offender should owe the victim a
offender
debt of gratitude for
b)      Offender abused such trust
Note: robbery or theft committed by a
visitor in the house of the offended
c)      Abuse of confidence facilitated party is aggravated by obvious
the 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:
malversation
qualified theft
estafa by conversion
misappropriation
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:
The crime occurred in the public office
Public authorities are actually performing their public duties
The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of
religion
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 the presence of the Chief Committed in contempt of Public

Executive, in the Presidential Palace or Authority
a place of worship(Par. 5, Art. 14) (Par. 2, 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 Outside the office (still performing
Palace duty)
Public authority may be the offended Public authority is not be the offended
party 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
it facilitated the commission of the crime
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
commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime
when the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not
aggravating
absorbed by Treachery
Requisites:
The place facilitated the commission or omission of the crime
Deliberately sought and not incidental to the commission or omission of the
crime
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
Facilitated the commission of the crime
Deliberately sought
Taken advantage of for the purposes of impunity
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:
Committed when there is a calamity or misfortune
Conflagration
Shipwreck
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 Committed with the use of
misfortune wasteful means
Crime is committed BY using
Crime is committed DURING any fire, inundation, explosion or
of the calamities other wasteful means
 WITH THE AID OF ARMED
MEN BY A BAND
Requires more than 3 armed
Present even if one of the malefactors who all acted
offenders merely relied on their together in the commission of an
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?
offender is on trial for an offense
he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
that both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same
title of the RPC
the offender is convicted of the new offense
after the lapse of a period for perfecting an appeal
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served
defendant has expressly waived in writing his right to appeal
the accused has applied for probation
robbery and theft – title 10
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 sentence for the Enough that final judgment has
first sentence been rendered 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:
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.
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
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 trickery Involves the use of
and cunning to direct inducement by Involves the use of
arouse suspicion of insidious words or devise to conceal
the victim machinations 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)
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).
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.
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
Means were purposely sought to weaken the defense of the victim to resist the assault
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
that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself
that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him
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
there is always treachery in the killing of child
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
TREACHERY STRENGTH TO WEAKEN DEFENSE
Means, methods or
forms are employed by
the offender to make it Offender does not Means are employed but
impossible or hard for employ means, methods it only materially
the offended party to or forms of attack, he weakens the resisting
put any sort of only takes advantage of power of the offended
resistance his superior 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
Crime must be against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave
coercion, and murder
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:
A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
They were broken to effect entrance
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;
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.
mere plurality of words do not show cruelty
no cruelty when the other wrong was done after the victim was dead
 Requisites:
that the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
that the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
 IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Moral suffering – subjected to Physical suffering
humiliation
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:
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
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
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,
fraudulent insolvency, arson) Always aggravating in crimes against chastity.

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.

Mitigating Circumstance Aggravating 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
a)      if intoxication is not habitual habit must be actual and confirmed
b)      if intoxication is not subsequent b)      if its intentional (subsequent to
to the plan to commit a felony the plan to 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 consequences of his High degree of instruction and
criminal act. Not just mere illiteracy education – offender avails himself of
but lack of intelligence. his learning in committing the offense.

 Determined by: the court must consider the circumstance of lack of

instruction
 Exceptions (not mitigating):
crimes against property
crimes against chastity (rape included)
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.
Art 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:
1.      Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2.      Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3.      Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
Principals by Direct Participation
Requisites for 2 or more to be principals by direct participation:
participated in the criminal resolution (conspiracy)
carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end
 Conspiracy –  Is unity of purpose and intention.
Establishment of Conspiracy
proven by overt act
Not mere knowledge or approval
It is not necessary that there be formal agreement.
Must prove beyond reasonable doubt
Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were
united in execution.
Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown in
the following cases:
 Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
Active Cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral
support thereto.
While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the
commission of the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must
be established by positive and conclusive evidence.
 Conspirator not liable for the crimes of the other which is not the object of
the conspiracy or is not a logical or necessary consequence thereof
 Multiple rape – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because each
cooperated in the commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others
 Exception: in the crime of murder with treachery – all the offenders must at
least know that there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate
therein.
Example: Juan and Pedro conspired to kill Tomas without the previous plan of
treachery. In the crime scene, Juan used treachery in the presence of Pedro
and Pedro knew such. Both are liable for murder. But if Pedro stayed by the
gate while Juan alone killed Tomas with treachery, so that Pedro didn’t know
how it was carried out, Juan is liable for murder while Pedro for homicide.
 No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence.
However, special laws may make one a co-principal. Example: Under the
Pure Food and Drug Act, a storeowner is liable for the act of his employees
of selling adulterated coffee, although he didn’t know that coffee was being
sold.
 Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co-defendant.
 That the culprits “carried out the plan and personally took part in the
execution, by acts which directly tended to the same end”:
The principals by direct participation must be at the scene of the crime,
personally taking part, although he was not present in the scene of the
crime, he is equally liable as a principal by direct participation.
One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal direct
participation.
 If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the
commission of the acts of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless
the crime agreed to be committed is treason, sedition, or rebellion.
Principals by Induction
a.    “Those who directly force or induce others to commit it”
2. Principal by induction liable only when principal by direct participation
committed the act induced
3. Requisites:
inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of
the crime
such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by
the material executor
d. Forms of Inducements
By Price, reward or promise
By irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
Commander has ascendancy or influence
Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
Command be uttered prior to the commission
Executor had no personal reason
4. Imprudent advice does not constitute sufficient inducement
5. Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:
6. Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that
had to be obeyed do not make one an inductor.
 PROPOSES TO COMMIT A
INDUCTOR FELONY
Induce others Same
Punishable at once when proposes
to commit rebellion or treason. The
person to whom one proposed
should not commit the crime,
Liable only when the crime is otherwise the latter becomes an
executed inductor
Covers any crime Covers only treason and rebelli
 Effects of Acquittal of Principal by direct participation on liability of
principal by inducement
Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of the co-defendant.
One can not be held guilty of instigating the commission of the crime without
first showing that the crime has been actually committed by another. But if
the one charged as principal by direct participation be acquitted because he
acted without criminal intent or malice, it is not a ground for the acquittal of
the principal by inducement.
Principals by Indispensable Cooperation
“Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished”
Requisites:
Participation in the criminal resolution
Cooperation through another act (includes negligence)
 *there is collective criminal responsibility when the offenders are criminally
liable in the same manner and to the same extent. The penalty is the same
for all.
 there is individual criminal responsibility when there is no conspiracy.
Art. 18.           Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not
being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts.
 Requisites:
 Examples: a) Juan was choking Pedro. Then Tomas ran up and hit Pedro
with a bamboo stick. Juan continued to choke Pedro until he was dead.
Tomas is only an accomplice because the fatal blow came from Juan. b)
Lending a dagger to a killer, knowing the latter’s purpose.
 An accomplice has knowledge of the criminal design of the principal and all
he does is concur with his purpose.
 There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
attributed to the person charges as accomplice
 In homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have inflicted the mortal
wound.
there be a community of design (principal originates the design, accomplice
only concurs)
he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, intending to
give material and moral aid (cooperation must be knowingly done, it must
also be necessary and not indispensable
There be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged
accomplice
Art. 19.           Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the

crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments

thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the

crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever
the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
 Example of Par 1: person received and used property from another,
knowing it was stolen
 Example of Par 2: placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was
unlawfully killed to plant evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed
by the principals
 Example of Par 3: a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the
escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his
public functions, b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the
escape of the author of the crime – guilty of treason, parricide, murder or
an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to be
habitually guilty of some crime.
 General Rule: Principal acquitted, Accessory also acquitted
 Exception: when the crime was in fact committed but the principal is
covered by exempting circumstances.
Example: Minor stole a ring and Juan, knowing it was stolen, bought it. Minor is
exempt. Juan liable as accessory
 Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result of the separate
charge against the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct
from each other
 Liability of the accessory – the responsibility of the accessory is subordinate
to that of a principal in a crime because the accessory’s  participation
therein is subsequent to its commission, and his guilt is directly related to
the principal. If the principal was acquitted by an exempting circumstance
the accessory may still be held liable.
 Difference of accessory from principal and accomplice:
Accessory does not take direct part or cooperate in, or induce the commission
of the crime
Accessory does not cooperate in the commission of the offense by acts either
prior thereto or simultaneous therewith
Participation of the accessory in all cases always takes place after the
commission of the crime
Takes part in the crime through his knowledge of the commission of the
offense.
Art. 20.           Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. —
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 single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1
of the next preceding article.
 Basis: Ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name
which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as
those mentioned.
 Nephew and Niece not included
 Accessory not exempt when helped a relative-principal by profiting from the
effects of the crime, or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the
crime.
 Only accessories covered by par 2 and 3 are exempted.
 Public officer who helped his guilty brother escape does not incur criminal
liability as ties of blood constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call
of duty.
 PENALTY – suffering inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law.
 3 fold purpose:
 Juridical Conditions of Penalty
retribution or expiation – penalty commensurate with the gravity of the offense
correction or reformation – rules which regulate the execution of penalties
consisting of deprivation of liberty
social defense – inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual delinquents
a. Must be productive of suffering – limited by the integrity of human
personality

b. Must be proportionate to the crime

c. Must be personal – imposed only upon the criminal

d. Must be legal – according to a judgment of fact and law

e. Must be equal – applies to everyone regardless of the circumstance

f.  Must bee correctional – to rehabilitate the offender

 
Art. 100.               Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Basis:
obligation to repair or to make whole the damage caused to another by reason
of an act or omission, whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or
not punishable by law
Dual character of the crime as against:
a)      the state because of the disturbance of peace and order

b)      the private person injured unless it involves the crime of treason,
rebellion, espionage, contempt and others where no civil liability arises on the
part of the offender either because there are no damages or there is no private
person injured by the crime
Damage that may be recovered in criminal cases:
 Crimes against persons, like crime of physical injuries – whatever he spent
for treatment of wounds, doctor’s fees, medicines as well as salary or wages
unearned
 Moral Damages: seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts,
adultery or concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal
search, libel, slander or any other form of defamation, malicious prosecution
 Exemplary Damages: imposed when crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances
a)      If there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, offender is
not civilly liable

b)      Dismissal of the info or the crime action does not affect the right of the
offended party to institute or continue the civil action already instituted arising
from the offense, because such dismissal does not carry with it the extinction
of the civil one.

c)       When accused is acquitted on ground that his guilt has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted
d)      Exemption from criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or insane person,
and a person under 9 yrs, or over 9 but under 15 who acted w/ discernment
and those acting under the impulse of irresistible force or under the impulse of
an uncontrolable fear of an equal or greater injury does not include exemption
from civil liability.

e)      Acquittal in the crim action for negligence does not preclude the
offended party from filing a civil action to recover damages, based on the
theory that the act is quasi-delict

f)       When the court found the accused guilty of crim negligence but failed to
enter judgement of civil liability, the private prosecutor has a right to appeal for
the purposes of the civil liability of the accused. The appellate court may
remand the case to the trial court for the latter to include in its judgement the
civil liability of the accused

g)      Before expiration of the 15-day of for appealing, the trial court can
amend the judgement of conviction by adding a provision for the civil liability of
the accused, even if the convict has started serving the sentence.
h)      An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party during
the pendency of the criminal case provided the right is reserved. Reservation is
necessary in the ff cases:
any of the cases referred to in Art 32 (perpetual or temporary disqualification for
exercise of the right of suffrage)
defamation, fraud and physical injury (bodily injury and not the crime of physical
injury)
civil action is against a member of a city or municipal  police force for refusing
or failing to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property
in an action for damage arising from fault or negligence and there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties (quasi-delict)
i)        Prejudicial Question – one w/c arises in a case, the resolution of which is
a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal.
h)      An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party during
the pendency of the criminal case provided the right is reserved. Reservation is
necessary in the ff cases:
any of the cases referred to in Art 32 (perpetual or temporary disqualification for
exercise of the right of suffrage)
defamation, fraud and physical injury (bodily injury and not the crime of physical
injury)
civil action is against a member of a city or municipal  police force for refusing
or failing to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or
property
in an action for damage arising from fault or negligence and there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the parties (quasi-delict)
i)        Prejudicial Question – one w/c arises in a case, the resolution of which is
a logical antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of
which pertains to another tribunal.
 For the principle to apply, it is essential that there be 2 cases involved, a civil
and a criminal case. Prejudicial questions may be decided before any criminal
prosecution may be instituted or may proceed.
 An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party during the
pendency of the criminal case, provided that the right is reserved
Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil,
unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgement that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist
THANK YOU!!!

Prepared by:
Prof. Pio S. Jagurin, MBA, J.D