Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in the air. Bullet
Article 13.
ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act
was populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear only one requisite present, considered mitigating
or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant
Justifying circumstances
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
Art 13 to be applicable. Other 2 elements not necessary. If 2 requisites are present considered a
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
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
Applicable to:
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,
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
date of trial
Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not
Exempting circumstance
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
b. Causing injury by mere accident if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite (without
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (praeter
fault thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as mitigating because the penalty is lower than
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
Requisites:
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.
1. Sufficient adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must
Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury inflicted and (3) the attitude of mind when
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.
3. Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. Theres 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.
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
1. Why? Law says the provocation is on the part of the offended party
dies.
2. Example: Tomas mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. No Mitigating
Example: As part of fun-making, Juan merely intended to burn Pedros clothes. Pedro received minor
Circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas.
burns. Juan is charged with physical injuries. Had Pedro died, Juan would be entitled to the mitigating
3. Provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating
circumstance.
accordingly be
Circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because the deceased from the moment he
Not applicable to felonies by negligence. Why? In felonies through negligence, the offender acts
fled did not give any provocation for the accused to pursue and attack him.
without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of
c. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is
foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies. There is no intent on the part of the offender which may
provoked
be considered as diminished.
1. 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
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.
self-control.
2. 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
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge
c. The act must come from lawful sentiments
1. Requisites:
theres a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
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.
VINDICATION
More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. Such is more worthy
Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cant be counted separately and
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. Juans anger
and indignation resulting from the arrest cant 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.
of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.
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
PROVOCATION
Example: Juans boss punched him for not going to work he other day. Cause is slight.
independently
There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of P&O when more than 24 hours elapsed
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
between the alleged insult and the commission of the felony, or several hours have passed
obfuscation
between the cause of the P&O and the commission of the crime, or at least hours intervened
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)
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
Example: Surrendered after talking to town councilor. Not V.S. because theres an external stimulus
Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be considered mitigating if warrant not
served or returned unserved because accused cant be located.
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.
RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender may occur.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
a)
voluntarily surrendered
b)
b)
c)
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
b)
c)
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.
plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating must make plea at the first
opportunity
a)
plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea
considered as Mitigating Circumstance
a)
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.
b)
c)
Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of
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
a)
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
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.
Example: Juan stole his brothers 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
Requisites:
a)
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
10. And any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned
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.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
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)
liable
d)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
e)
Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminally
NOT analogous:
a)
Definition Those circumstance which raise the penalty for a crime without exceeding the
Basis: The greater perversity of the offense as shown by:
Example: evident premeditation inherent in theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage
a)
b)
c)
d)
the time
e)
f)
Kinds:
a)
b)
Specific apply only to specific crimes (ignominy for chastity crimes; treachery for persons
crimes)
c)
Qualifying those that change the nature of the crime (evident premeditation becomes murder)
d)
Inherent necessarily accompanies the commission of the crime (evident premeditation in theft,
estafa)
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
GENERIC AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
1)
Aggravating Circumstances which DO NOT have the effect of increasing the penalty:
which themselves constitute a crime specifically punishable by law or which are included in the law
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such degree that it must of necessity accompany
Aggravating circumstances are not presumed. Must be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to