Twenty Five (25) Important Points on Circumstances
Affecting Criminal Liability
1.
There are six (6) justifying circumstances enumerated in Article
11 of the Revised Penal Code where the accused does not incur
any criminal and civil liability because his/her act is in
accordance with law; he/she therefore does not commit any
crime at all. There is generally no civil liability, except in
avoidance of greater evil or injury where the person benefitted
is the one civilly liable [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 11 and 101].
The justifying circumstances in Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code include:
1. 1.
2.
3. 2.
4.
5. 3.
6.
7. 4.
8.
9. 5.
10.
11.6.
2.
Self-defense
Defense of relative
Defense of stranger
Avoidance of greater evil or injury
Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
Obedience to lawful order of a superior
The Battered Woman Syndrome (“BWS”) refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse and victims-survivors suffering from BWS do
not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. [Rep. Act No. 9262
(2004), sec. 3(c) and 26] It is thus similar to a justifying
circumstance as long as at least two cycles of violence,
consisting of three phases, are duly established by the expert
testimony of psychologists or psychiatrists. [Rep. Act No. 9262
(2004), sec. 26, in relation to People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537
(2002)]
3.
An indispensable requisite of self-defense, defense of relative
and defense of stranger is that the victim must have mounted
an unlawful aggression against the accused. Without such
unlawful aggression, the accused cannot invoke self-defense,
defense of relative or defense of stranger as a justifying
circumstance. [People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July
2018] There could likewise be no incomplete self defense,
defense of relative or defense of stranger if there is no unlawful
aggression.
4.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material
unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression.
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with
physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in
a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary,
but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a
revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and
making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression
must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was
holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like
aiming to throw a pot. [People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23
July 2018]
5.
A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the
fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office,
which have two requisites: (a) that the offender acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right: and (b) that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right or office. [People v. Belbes, 334 SCRA
161 (2000)]
6.
There are seven (7) exempting circumstances enumerated in
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code where a person who
commits a crime is exempt from criminal liability because of the
absence of freedom of action, intelligence or intent or lack of
negligence. However, he incurs civil liability, except in
paragraphs 4 and 7, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
The exempting circumstances in Article 12 of the Revised Penal
Code include:
1. 1.
2.
3. 2.
4.
5. 3.
6.
7. 4.
8.
9. 5.
10.
11.6.
12.
13.7.
7.
An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter acted
1. under a lucid interval
A person fifteen years or under
A person over fifteen and under eighteen years, unless he
1. acted with discernment
Accident
Compulsion of an irresistible force
Impulse of an uncontrollable fear
Prevented due to lawful or insuperable cause
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal
liability an imbecile or an insane person unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval. An imbecile is exempt at all times,
while an insane person is exempt unless he acted during a lucid
interval. An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency
while an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or
suffers from a mental disorder. [People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325
(1980)]
An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code, is one who must be deprived completely of reason
or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing
the crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and
seven years of age. [People v. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, 23
July 1997]
Insanity has been defined as "a manifestation in language or
conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less
permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality,
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion,
inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory or of the
intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition."
[People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 (1980), citing Section 1039,
Revised Administrative Code]
8.
A child fifteen (15) years and under is absolutely exempt from
criminal liability. A child over fifteen (15) years old but below
eighteen (18) years old is also exempt from criminal liability,
unless he acted with discernment. [Rep. Act No. 9344 (2006),
sec. 6] A minor is presumed to have acted without discernment.
[Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116 (2005)]
9.
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption
from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but
over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
[People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 (1939)] Discernment is more
than the mere understanding between right and wrong. Rather
it means the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act. [People v. Navarro, 51 O.G.
4062 (1955)]
10. In absolutory causes, the person commits a crime but is
absolved from criminal liability by reason of public policy or
sentiment. There is generally civil liability. There are several
absolutory causes which include:
a.
The spontaneous desistance of the person who
commenced the commission of a felony before he could
perform all acts of execution [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6(3)]
1.
b.
c.
d.
Frustrated and attempted light felonies are not
punishable, except in crimes against persons and property
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 7]
2.
Accessories are not criminally liable in light felonies [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 16]
3.
Accessories who are relatives of the principal are exempt
from criminal liability [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 20]
e.
Death or serious physical injuries and other physical
injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 247]
f.
Absolutory causes in qualified trespass to dwelling [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 280]
g.
Exempt persons in certain crimes against property,
specifically estafa, theft or malicious mischief [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 332]
h.
Consent or pardon in certain crimes against chastity [REV.
PEN. CODE, art. 344]
i.
Instigation [People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January
1999]
11. Article 247 of the RPC does not define an offense. Destierro is
imposed more as a protection to the accused rather than as a
punishment. [People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)] It is
rather an absolutory cause which is present "where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed." [People v. Talisic, G.R.
No. 97961, 5 September 1997]
12. The absolutory cause in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
applies only to legally married persons and can be invoked by
the innocent spouse who surprises his or her spouse in sexual
intercourse with another person and kills or inflicts physical
injuries on them in the act or immediately thereafter. It is not
applied if the spouse has promoted or facilitate the prostitution
or has otherwise consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
[Rep. Pen. Code, art. 247 and People v. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961,
5 September 1997] This absolutory cause applies to parents
with respect to their daughters under eighteen years and their
seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 247]
13. Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides for an absolutory
cause in the crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious
mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil
liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his
relationship to the offended party. [Intestate Estate of Manolita
Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
February 2010]
The relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and
the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the
death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the
marriage produced children or not. [Intestate Estate of Manolita
Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
February 2010]
Furthermore, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the
simple felonies mentioned therein and it does not apply where
any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed
with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa
through falsification. [Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales
vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 February
2010]
14. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the
accused. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an
absolutory cause. [People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22
January 1999]
There are two tests in entrapment:
a.
Subjective or origin of intent test, where the focus of the
inquiry is the accused’s predisposition to commit the
offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before
his initial exposure to government agents
b.
Objective test, where the court considers the nature of the
police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct.
The inquiry is focused on the inducements made by police
agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his
predisposition to commit the crime
15. Mitigating circumstances may either be ordinary or privileged.
Ordinary mitigating circumstances will lead to the imposition of
the lower indivisible penalty in case there are two indivisible
penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code or of the
penalty in its minimum period in case of a divisible penalty
under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, if there is no
aggravating circumstance; while a privileged mitigating
circumstance may lead to the lowering of the penalty by a degree
or two degrees. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 63, 64, 64(5), 68, and 69]
16. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances may be
ordinary or privileged mitigating circumstances. When majority
of the requisites are present, they are considered as privileged
mitigating circumstances under Article 69 of the Revised Penal
Code which may lead to the reduction of the penalty by one or
two degrees; when majority of the requisites are not present,
they are considered as ordinary mitigating circumstances under
Article 13(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
17. Minority in Article 13(2) of the Revised Penal Code is an
exempting circumstance if the child is 15 years old or below or
as a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the
Revised Penal Code, which will lead to a reduction of only one
degree, if the child is over 15 but below 18 years old who acted
with discernment.
18. When originally there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstance, it will be considered as a
privileged mitigating circumstance which will lead to the
imposition of the penalty next lower in degree. [REV. PEN. CODE,
art. 64(5)] It does not apply if there was originally an aggravating
circumstance and offsetting was done leaving two or more
mitigating circumstances.
19. The list of mitigating circumstances in Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code is not exclusive as there may be other mitigating
circumstances which are of a similar nature or analogous to
those enumerated, while the list of aggravating circumstances
in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code are exclusive.
20. The qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged
in the complaint or information, otherwise, these cannot be
appreciated by the court even if subsequently proved during the
trial. [Rules of Court, Rule 110, sec. 8 and 9 and Sombillon v.
People, G.R. No. 175528, 30 September 2009]
21. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
crime especially punishable by law or which are included by law
in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor as well
as those which are inherent in the crime are not taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 62]
22. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
moral attributes of the offender or from his private relations
with the offended party, or from any other personal cause shall
only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those as to
whom such circumstances are attendant; while circumstances
which consist in the material execution of the act or in the
means employed to accomplish it shall serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge
of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 62]
23. Special aggravating circumstances may not be offset by
ordinary mitigating circumstances and mandate that the
penalty be imposed always in its maximum period, including: (i)
penalty for complex crimes in Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code; (ii) penalty for mistake in identify in Article 49 of the
Revised Penal Code; (iii) when the offender took advantage of his
public position in the commission of a crime in Article 62(1)(a)
of the Revised Penal Code (iv) when the offense was committed
by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated group
in Article 62(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code; and (v) in quasirecidivism in Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code.
24. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack
on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared
to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of
the attack. This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal
or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous
when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be
in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. [People v. Pulgo,
G.R. No. 218205, 5 July 2017]
25. 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. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 15]