Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
LAW 1 REVIEWER
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
70
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
POINTS
PAR. 1: THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER, WHEN ALL
THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY OR EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT.
I. Important Words And Phrases
Those mentioned in the preceding chapter
o This clause has reference to (1) justifying circumstances
and (2) exempting circumstances.
II. When All The Requisites Necessary To Justify An Act Are Not
Attendant
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of
stranger.
o Article 13, par. 1 is applicable ONLY when unlawful
aggression is present but the other two requisites (in
the cases referred to in Article 11, par. 1,2,3) are not
present.
If there is no unlawful aggression, there could
be no self-defense or defense of a relative,
whether complete or incomplete.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
71
1 Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty
lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that
the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period which
may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present
or lacking.
III. When All The Requisite Necessary To Exempt From Criminal
Liability Are Not Attendant
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and
under 18 years of age.
o If the minor is over 15 and under 18, but acted with
discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating
circumstance.
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.
o There are 2 requisites for Article 12, par. 4.
o If the 2nd requisite (done with due care) and the first
part of the 4th requisite (no fault) are ABSENT, case will
fall under Article 365, which punishes a felony by
negligence or imprudence mitigating because the
penalty is lower than that which punishes intentional
felony.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
72
PAR. 2: THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEAR 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.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 2
The diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
II. Article 13, Par. 2 Of Revised Penal Code Impliedly Repealed By
Republic Act No. 9344
Under R.A 9344, a child above 15 but below 18 years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with
discernment.
If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
programs.
III. Diversion Programs (Republic Act No. 9344)
If the child acted with discernment, he shall undergo diversion
programs.
o Diversion alternative child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of a child
in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychological, or educational
background without resulting to formal court
proceedings.
A. System Of Diversion
Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion
programs without undergoing court proceedings
Penalty
Procedure
Imposable penalty Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation
for the crime is not and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous modes
more than 6 years of conflict resolution in accordance with the best
imprisonment.
interest of the child with a view to accomplishing
the objectives of restorative justice.
Involves:
(1) Law enforcement office/Punong Barangay
(2) Local social welfare and development
officer/other members of the Local Councils
for the Protection of Children (LCPC)
(3) Child and his/her family
Victimless crime Develop appropriate diversion and rehabilitation
where imposable program.
penalty is not
more than 6 years Involves:
imprisonment.
(1) Coordinate with Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC)
(2) Local social welfare development officer
(3) Child and his/her parents or guardians
Imposable penalty Diversion measure may be resorted only by the
exceeds 6 years court.
imprisonment
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
73
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
74
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
75
E. When Not Appreciated
Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery.
Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
o The reason is that 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.
Not applicable to felonies like defamation or slander (People v.
Galang de Bautista). Applicable ONLY to offenses resulting in
physical injuries or material harm.
IV. Is Article 13, Par. 3 Applicable To Felonies Where Intention Of The
Offender Is Immaterial?
People v. Cristobal where the resulting abortion was not
intended by the offender, this mitigating circumstance is not
applicable.
People v. Flameo where the accused pulled the hair of the
complainant with the intention to maltreat her, but thus
caused her to fall on her buttocks resulting into unintentional
abortion, mitigating circumstance was given in favor of the
accused.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
76
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
77
IV. Provocation v. Vindication
Provocation
Vindication
Made directly only to the person The grave offense may be
committing the felony.
committed also against the
offenders relatives.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have
provocation need not be a grave done a grave offense to the
offense.
Provocation
or
threat
immediately preceded the act i.e.
no interval time in between.
Reason for difference This greater leniency in the case of
vindication is due undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the
honor of a person, an offense which is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the
provocation or threat.
V. Basis To Determine Gravity Of Offense In Vindication
Considerations in determining whether a certain personal
offense was grave:
o Social standing of the person.
o Place where the insult was made.
o Time when the insult was made.
Considered grave offenses:
o Sarcastic remark implying the accused was a petty
tyrant.
o Remark of the injured party before the guests that the
accused lived at the expense of his wife
consideration of place.
o Just after the American forces reoccupied Manila, the
offended party told the accused that the latter was a
Japanese spy consideration of time.
The provocation should be proportionate to the damage
caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission.
Grave offense must be directed to the accused.
o The supposed grave offense done by the victim was an
alleged remark made in the presence of the accused
that the Civil Service Commission is a hangout of
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
78
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: The Act Of The Offended Party Must Be Both
Unlawful And Sufficient To Produce Such A Condition Of Mind.
Unlawful or unjust act of the offended party
o People v. Ancheta, et al. mitigating circumstance
considered in favor of the owner who, upon seeing the
person who stole his carabao, shoots the supposed
thief.
o People v. Samonte Deceased created trouble during
the wake of the departed father of the defendant.
Considering the trouble created by the accused was
both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate accused, his
guilt is mitigated by passion or obfuscation.
Exercise of a right or fulfillment of a duty is not proper source
of passion or obfuscation.
o People v. Noynay, et al. Where the accused killed
the deceased when the latter was going to take his
carabao to the barrio lieutenant after the accused
refused to pay for the sugar cane destroyed by his
carabao. The deceased was within the rights of the
deceased, and thus there is not mitigating
circumstance.
o US v. Taylor Accused was making a disturbance on a
public street when a policeman came to arrest him. The
anger and indignation of the accused resulting from the
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
79
V. SECOND ELEMENT: That Said Act Which Produced The Obfuscation
Was Not Far Removed From The Commission Of The Crime By A
Considerable Length Of Time During Which The Perpetrator Might
Recover His Normal Equanimity.
No passion or obfuscation when:
o 24 has elapsed between the alleged insult and the
commission of the felony.
o Several hours passed between the cause of passion or
obfuscation and the commission of the crime.
VI. May Passion Or Obfuscation Lawfully Arise From Causes Existing
Only In The Honest Belief Of The Offender? YES
US v. Ferrer belief of the defendant that the deceased had
caused his dismissal from his employment is sufficient to
confuse his reason and impel him to commit the crime.
US v. Macalintal belief entertained in good faith by the
defendants that the deceased cast upon their mother a spell of
withcraft which was the cause of serious illness is sufficient.
VII. Other Notes
Provocation and obfuscation when arising from one and the
same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance (p.309).
Vindication of grave offense cannot co-exist with passion and
obfuscation.
o Exception: when there are other facts, although closely
connected i.e. where there are other facts, although
closely connected with the fact upon which one
circumstance is premised, the other circumstance may
be appreciated as based on the other fact (People v.
Diokno)
o Example: Two facts which are closely connected
Elopement, which is a grave offense of a family
of old customs vindication as mitigating.
Refusal to deal with him, a stimulus strong
enough to produce in his mind a fit of passion
passion as a mitigating circumstance.
Vindication and obfuscation cannot be considered when the
person attacked is not the one who gave cause therefore.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
80
PAR. 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
I. Basis Of Paragraph 7
Lesser perversity of the offender.
II. Two Mitigating Circumstances In Paragraph:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Under Article 13, when both are present, they should have the
effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances.
When they mitigate the penalty, when both are present, they
should produce this effect to a greater extent.
III. Elements For Voluntary Surrender
Requisites for paragraph 7:
o Offender had not been actually arrested
o Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
of to the latters agent
o Surrender is voluntary
Requisites of voluntariness:
o
o
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: Offender Had Not Been Actually Arrested And
Surrendered Himself.
Cases of voluntary surrender
o People v. Tenorio Upon seeing a policeman, the
accused surrendered and admitted he did the crime.
There was intent and desire on his part to surrender.
o People v. Dayrit Accused hid in the hotel not
because of the police but because of the relatives of
the deceased. Upon seeing policemen, he readily
admitted ownership of the weapon and went with the
policemen.
o People v. Benito Instead of escaping, the accused
called the police, voluntarily approached them when
they came though not revealing his identity, and said
that he will help the police find the suspect. Later on,
he admitted that he was voluntarily surrendering
himself.
o People v. Magpalay Accused made several attempts
to surrender but somehow it got delayed because of
various reasons and so he only got to surrender after a
week. No defiance of law was present.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
81
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
82
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
83
VII. Confession Of Guilt Before A Court Prior To The Presentation Of
Evidence By The Prosecution
A. Plea Of Guilty
Three requisites
a. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt.
b. Confession made in open court that is, before the
competent court.
c. Confession of guilt made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.
When it must be made:
o The plea must be made before trial begins.
o Plea of guilty on appeal, not mitigating when:
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
84
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
85
Considers the fact that one suffering from physical defect does
not have complete freedom of action, and therefore there is a
diminution of that element of voluntariness.
II. Physical defect must restrict means of actions, defense, or
communication with fellow beings
Physical defect in this paragraph: armless, cripple, or a
stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings are limited.
Paragraph does not distinguish between educated and
uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons. The Code considers
them as being on equal footing.
PAR. 9: SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH HIS
EXERCISING OF THE WILL-POWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT
HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 9
The circumstance in paragraph 9 of Article 13 is mitigating
because there is a diminution of intelligence and intent.
II. Elements Of Illness That Diminishes Will-Power:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of
his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
III. Complete Loss Of Will-Power May Be An Exempting Circumstance.
A person with dementia praecox or manic depressive psychosis
has no control over his acts during periods of excitement.
This may be an exempting circumstance if the accused is
demented at the time he perpetrated the crime.
IV. Illness Of The Mind Is Included
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
86
V. Examples Where Illness Of The Offender Considered Mitigating
People v. Balneg
o The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a
witch was for the public good may be considered a
mitigating circumstance for the reason that those who
have obsession (that witches are to be killed) does not
have real control over his will.
People v. Amit
o Although being mentally sane, the appellant is suffering
from a mild behavior disorder, which the court
regarded as a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Carpenter
o One suffering from acute neurosis, which diminished
exercise of will power, is entitled to this mitigating
circumstance.
People v. Formigones
o One who is feebleminded warrants the finding in his
favor of the mitigating circumstance.
People v. Antonio
o One suffering from schizo-affective disorder or
psychosis, which diminishes the exercise of his willpower but does not deprive him of the consciousness
of his acts, may be credited with this mitigating
circumstance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
87
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar to passion
obfuscation
Similar
to
surrender
and Par. 6
and
and
voluntary Par. 7
Restitution in malversation case is only a mitigating circumstance
Payment or reimbursement is not a defense for exoneration in
malversation; it may only be considered as a mitigating
circumstance because damage is not an element of
malversation.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
88
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
89