Criminal Law 1 Who are exempt from criminal liability under Article 4, RPC? -> .

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 Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably 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 Art. 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 act under the compulsion of 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 insuperable cause. What are the types of exempting circumstances? What are the basis of each? What are the

elements of each? -> Exempting circumstances are those wherein there is an absence in the agent of the crime of all the condition that would make an act voluntary and, hence, although there is no criminal liability, there is civil liability. In exempting, the crime is committed but there is absent in the person of the offender any element of voluntariness, and so he is not criminally liable but is civilly liable except in the exempting circumstances of accident and lawful or insuperable cause. 1. Imbecility and the insanity. An imbecile is one who may be advanced in years, but has a mental development comparable only to children between 2 and 7 years of age. An insane is one who suffers from a mental disorder in such degree as to deprive him of reason. The insane person may be held criminally liable if he acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony, 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. (Art. 12, Par. 1) The test of imbecility or insanity is complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act, that is, that the accused acted without the least discernment. (People v. Aldemeta, 55033, Nov. 13, 1986) The evidence regarding insanity must refer to the very moment of its execution and must be proven by clear and positive evidence. (People v. Basco, 44 Phil. 204) Even if the offender is not an imbecile nor insane, if he is completely deprived of the consciousness of his acts when he commits the crime, he is entitled to exemption for a cause analogous to imbecility or insanity. So, one committing a crime while

dreaming during his sleep (People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255) or in a state of somnambulism or sleep walking (People v. Gimena, 55 Phil. 604) is not criminally liable as the acts are embraced within the plea of insanity. 2. Minority A person under nine (9) years of age. (Art. 12, Par. 2) In this case, the minor is completely devoid of discernment and are irresponsible. A persons over nine (9) years of age but under fifteen (15), unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 [Repealed by PD 603]. (Art. 12, Par. 3) Discernment is the mental capacity to determine not merely the difference between right or wrong, but is also involves the capacity to comprehend the nature of the act and its consequences. The age of the minor is computed up to the time of the commission of the crime charged, not up to the date of trial.(People v. Navarro, 51 OG 409) If the minor is exempt from criminal liability, he shall be committed to the care of his or her father or mother or nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision. (Art. 189, PD 603, as amended) Minority is always a privileged mitigating circumstance under the RPC and lowers the prescribe penalty by one or two degrees in accordance with Article 68 of the Code. But like any modifying circumstance, it is not availing to those accused of crimes mala prohibita. (People v. Mangusan, 189 SCRA 624) However, this privileged mitigating circumstance may be appreciated in violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6425), the penalty to be imposed should not be lower than prision correccional. (People v. Simon, 93128, July 29, 1994)

3. Accident Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. (Art. 12, Par. 4) Its requisites are: a. The offender must be performing a lawful act. b. With due care. c. Causes injury to another by mere accident. d. Without fault or intent of causing it. An accident is any happening beyond the control of a person the consequences of which are not foreseeable. If foreseeable, there is fault or culpa. An accidental shooting due to legitimate self-defense is exempting. (People v. Trinidad, 49 OG 4889) In performing a lawful act with due care by snatching away the balisong in defense of stranger, the balisong flew with force that it hit another person who was seriously injured, Tommy is exempted from criminal liability because of mere accident. (Q2, 1992 Bar) Under this exempting circumstance, there is no civil liability. 4. Compulsion of irresistible force. Any person who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force. (Art. 12, Par. 5) The force referred to here must be a physical force, irresistible and compelling and must come from a third person. It cannot spring primarily from the offender himself. (People v. Fernando, 33 SCRA 149) Thus, if a person was struck with the butts of the guns of those who killed another to compel him to bury their victim, he is not liable as an accessory because he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. (US v. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 850) The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will, but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well grounded

apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be one of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or selfdefense in equal combat. (People v. Nalipanat, 145 SCRA 483) 5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (Art. 12, Par. 6) Uncontrollable fear is an impulse coming from within the person of the actor himself. The actor acts not against his will but because he is engendered by the fear. The threat producing the insuperable fear must be grave, actual, serious and such kind that the majority of men would have succumbed to such moral compulsion. (Feria and Gregorio, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 224) Thus, if one is compelled under fear of death to join the rebels, he is not liable for rebellion because he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (US v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339) 6. Insuperable or lawful cause. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. (Art. 12, Par. 7) This is a felony by omission. The failure of a policeman to deliver the prisoner lawfully arrested to the judicial authorities within the prescribed period because it was not possible to do so with practicable dispatch as the prisoner was arrested in a distant place would constitute a non-performance of duty to an insuperable cause. (US v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil. 118) 7. Absolutory causes. These are instances which actually constitute a crime but by reason of public policy and sentiment, it is considered to be without liability and no penalty is imposed, like:

a. Spontaneous desistance at the attempted stage of a felony. (Art. 6, Par. 3) b. Accessories exempt from criminal liability. (Art. 20) c. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.`(Art. 247) d. Enter a dwelling for the purpose of preventing serious harm or service to humanity. (Art. 280) e. Exempt from theft, swindling or malicious mischief by relationships. (Art. 332) f. Marriage of the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape. (Art. 244) g. Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime. Without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. Hence, it is exempting by reason of public policy. The person instigating must not be a private person as he will be liable as a principal by inducement. (Art. 17, Par. 2) In this case, the criminal intent (mens rea) originates in the mind of the instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. However, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means devised by a peace officer for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. With or without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already. Hence, entrapment is neither exempting or mitigating. The idea to commit the crime originated from the accused, thus the actor is criminally liable. The difference between entrapment and instigation lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal.