Exempting Circumstances

Michael Angelo Memoracion

Art. the following are exempt from criminal

12. Circumstances liability:
which exempt from
criminal liability.
1. An imbecile or an 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless When the imbecile or an insane person has
insane the latter has acted during a lucid interval. 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. under nine years of 2. A person under nine years of age. R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act :15 yrs
age old

3. A person over nine 3. A person over nine years of age and R.A 9344 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act :
years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with above 15 but below 18 yrs old
under fifteen, unless discernment, in which case, such minor
he has acted with shall be proceeded against in accordance When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
discernment with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. 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. Accident 4. Any person who, while performing a 1. Person is performing a lawful act
lawful act with due care, causes an injury 2. With due care
by mere accident without fault or intention 3. E causes injury to another by mere
of causing it. accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it
1. compulsion of irresistible force.

5. Any person who act under the 1. that the compulsion is by means of
compulsion of irresistible force. physical force
2. that the physical force must be
irresistible
3. that the physical force must come from a
third person

6. impulse of an 6. Any person who acts under the impulse 1. That the threat which causes the fear is
uncontrollable fear of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or of an evil greater than, or at least equal
greater injury. to, that which h is required to commit
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it
 Exempting Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

7. insuperable cause. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act 1. That an act is required by law to be done
required by law, when prevented by some 2. That a person fails to perform such act
lawful insuperable cause. 3. That his failure to perform such act is
due to some lawful or insuperable cause

Insuperable Cause – some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically prevented a person to do what the law
commands.

Elements:
1. an act is required by law to be done
2. a person fails to perform such act
3. his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful insuperable cause

Absolutory causes – where the act committed is a crime, but for some reason of public policy and sentiment, there
is not penalty imposed. Exempting and justifying circumstances are absolutory causes.

Examples:
1. spontaneous desistance in Article 6
2. no available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

After reading about justifying circumstances, we now come to the second set of circumstances that affect criminal
liability: exempting circumstances. While justifying circumstances relieve a person from criminal liability by giving cause
to his act, exempting circumstances allow a person to escape from criminal liability by way of exception. In all exempting
circumstances, there is a question of the presence and quality of intent. Such will determine the validity of an exempting
circumstance put up as a defense. The following are the exempting circumstances enumerated under the Revised
Penal Code:

1.) Imbecility or insanity, unless an insane person (not an imbecile) acted in a lucid interval
2.) Persons under 9 years old
3.) Persons above 9 years old but below 15 if they didn't act with discernment
4.) A person performing a lawful act with due care but causes injury by mere accident without fault or the intention to
cause the injury
5.) Any person compelled by an irresistible force (like having a gun put to his head, for example)
6.) Any person acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury (like a death threat or
hostage-taking)
7.) If a person who is required to perform an act required by law but is prevented by a lawful or insuperable cause

An imbecile isn't the same as an insane person. An insane person is insane. Period. An imbecile is someone
who has the mental development of a child between 2 to 7 years old. In People vs. Ambal 100 SCRA 325 an imbecile
under Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code is somebody who, when the crime was committed, deprived of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will. Imbecility or insanity must be proven for a grant of exemption to be given.

Circumstances 2 and 3 have now come under RA 9344. Regarding discernment, 2 things can be used by the
court to determine if discernment was present when a minor commits a crime: the manner of committing the crime and
the offender's conduct. If the way the crime was committed demonstrates that the minor used his intelligence (such as
committing the crime at night or hiding the stolen items in another person's house) then the court can safely say that
the minor acted with discernment. The way the minor behaves when the crime is committed can also serve as a basis
 Exempting Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

for the presence or absence of discernment. One such instance is when a child snatches a cellphone, is grabbed by
the owner, but manages to pull a knife out of nowhere and stab the owner with it (it happens!)

There is no irresistible force in a moment of passion or obfuscation. Irresistible force requires that the force be
applied by a third party.

An insuperable cause is a cause that actually (read: physically) prevents a person from doing an act that is
lawfully required of him. A lawful cause is a cause that prevents a person from performing another lawful act; priests,
for instance, are lawfully prevented from revealing the contents of confessions made to them by virtue of their
professional capacity. Employees of a bank can't divulge information about the bank records of his clients unless the
requirements in the bank secrecy law, the anti-money laundering law, the foreign currency deposits law or other related
bank laws are complied with. So you see why the waiver was so important during the impeachment trial of former Chief
Justice Corona.

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
 Exempting Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

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 self-defense
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)
 Exempting Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

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. The idea and resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation,
the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused, who adopts the idea and carries
it into execution. (Araneta v. CA, 46638, July 9, 1986)

A “buy-bust” operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officer to trap and catch a malefactor in
flagrante delicto, commonly involving dangerous drugs. (People v. Del Pilar, 188 SCRA 37) Where a person had a
ready supply of dangerous drugs for sale to anyone willing to pay the price asked for, although he might not have the
drug with him at the time of the initial transaction, the situation supports an entrapment, not an instigation. The fact that
the accused returned with the drugs shortly after the transaction was entered into, shows that he had ready contacts
with the supplier from whom he could readily get the drug. If the accused were merely instigated to look for the drug, it
 Exempting Circumstances
Michael Angelo Memoracion

would have taken him a considerable length of time to look for a source. (People v. Estevan, 196 SCRA 34) (Q8, 1992
Bar)

An example of instigation is given in Q9, 1995 Bar as follows: Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SPO2
Mercado gave Juan a P 100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SPO2 Mercado,
Juan went inside the shopping mall while the officer waited at the corner of the mall. After 15 minutes, Juan returned
with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which gave to SPO2 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and
charged him with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law by selling marijuana. Is Juan guilty of any offense? Juan cannot
be charged of any offense punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Although Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he
cannot be charged on the basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with which to buy marijuana cigarettes,
SPO2 Mercado practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set
against the facts, instigation is a valid defense available to Juan.