1.

Self- defense ( Art 11 par 1)

a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

2. Defense of Relatives ( art 11 par 2)

a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, making a defense had no part
therein.

3. Defense of a stranger ( art 11 par 3)

a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

4. State of necessity ( art 11 par 4 )

a. Evil sought to be avoided actually exist
b. That the injury feared be greater than That done to avoid it.
c. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Performance of duty ( art 11 par 5 )

a. That the accused acted in the performance of duty or in lawful exercise of a right or office.
b. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance if duty or lawful exercise of such right or office.

6. Obedience to order of superior (art 11 par 6)

a. That an order is issued by a superior
b. That such an order must be for some lawful purpose
c. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

7. Minority above 15 but below 18 years of age (ra9344)

8. Causing injury by mere accident ( Art 12 par 4)

a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. With due care
c. He causes injury by mere accident
d. Without fault or intention causing it.

9. Uncontrollable fear ( art 12 par 6 )

a. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that
which he is required to commit.
b. That it promises evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THE ACT ARE NOT ATTENDANT

1. INCOMPLETE self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger

Unlawful aggression must be present – being an indispensable requisite.

Either one or both is absent for the last 2 requisites.

( if unlawful aggression and any one of the other two)

It should be considered a privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in article 69of this code.

- Privileged mitigating circumstance – majority of the conditions required to justify the act is
present.
- There is incomplete self defense on the part of the defendant, which may be considered a
privileged mitigating circumstance. (People v martin)
- If there is no unlawful aggression, there could be no self-defense.

A. Example of incomplete defense of her person, home and children ( US v Rivera)

a. Unlawful aggression- trying to set on fire the house of the accused
b. Element of danger – to the occupants
c. Xxx No reasonable necessity – having driven out the aggressor, who prostrate on the
ground, yet accused was persistent in wounding him 14 times.

B. Example of incomplete self defense on state of necessity (people v de jesus)

a. Deceased in a state of drunkenness
b. Not as dangerous as he would if he had been sober
c. His aim proved faulty and easily evaded
d. Defender was not hit by five attempt stab blows.
e. Xxx For the defender, necessity of means employed is not reasonable.

C. Incomplete defense of relative

a. Pointing the shotgun at the first cousin
b. Accused came from behind and stabbed the deceased.
c. Because of the running feud between them, accused could not have impelled by pure
compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong on his
cousin.
d. Motivated by revenge or resentment

D. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury.

Any of the last two is absent

E. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty (people v oanis)

a. Their duty was to arrest balagtas
b. Dead or alive if resistance is offered by balagtas and they are overpowered.
c. They have exceeded in the fulfilment of duty by killing the person whom they believed to be
balagtas without any resistance from him and without making inquiries to his identity.
d. Punishable by art 69
 F. Incomplete JC of Obedience to an order (people v bernal)
a. Roleda fired at Pilones
b. An order of sgt benting
c. Roleda actually learned that Pilones had killed not only a barrio lieutenant but also a
member of the Militante police.
d. This may have aroused Roleda a feeling of resentment that may have impelled him readily
without further questions on orders.

WHEN ALL REQUISITES NECESSARY TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY ARE NOT ATTENDANT

1. Incomplete exempting Circumstance of MINORITY OVER 15 and UNDER 18 years of age

2 conditions must be present to be mitigating
a. Over 15 and under 18
b. Does act with discernment. (needs to have acted with to be exempted)

2. IEC of accident
a. If 2nd req and [1st part of 4th requisite] are absent – case falls under ART 365
(negligence/imp)
(bec. Penalty is lower than that intentional felony—- mitigating!)

b. If 2nd req and [2nd lart of 4th req] are absent — intentional felony
( no mitigating either )

3. Of uncontrollable fear
If only one is present
People v. Magpantay
- Felix and pedro took turns to guard
- A silhouette of a man passed in front of their house without any light
- Felix saw the silhouette (he asked but it walked hurriedly)
- Felix suspected to be a scouting guard of the a dilim gang and fired shot in the air
- Pedro heard and grabbed his rifle and fired at the figure on the road causing death of the man.
- Accused voluntarily surrendered

- Accused acted under the influence of fear of being attacked

- But the fear was not entirely uncontrollable
- No imminent danger

Art 64 –
- no agg and mit – medium period
- Only mit – min
- Only agg- max
- Par. 5 – 2 or more mit and no agg are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
 PAR 2 : THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of
the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art 80.

- Impliedly repealed by RA9344

- Now declares a child above 15 years but below 18 shall be exempt from crim liability unless
acted with discernment,
- If with discernment, shall be subject to a Diversion Programs ch2 ra9344
- Diversion – child appropriate process of determining the responsibility of a child in conflict with
the law.
- Diversion program – program that the child in conflict is required to undergo after being
responsible for the offense committed without undergoing formal court proceeding.
o Subject to ff conditions:
a. When penalty of crime is not more that 6 years
1. Mediation, family conferencing, conciliation, adopt indigenous modes of conflict
resolution in accordance to the best interest of the child in accomplishing
restorative justice
b. Victimless crimes – not more than 6 years
1. Lswdo shall meet with the child and his parents for the development of the
appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program in coordination with BCPC
c. Exceeds 6 years
1. Diversion measures may be resorted only by court.
- Contract of diversion
a. 45 days
b. Child to present to competent authorities at least once a month for reporting and
evaluation of the effectiveness of the program
c. Failure to comply, shall give the offended party the option to institute appropriate
legal action.
d. Period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the effectivity of
diversion program, but not exceeding 2 years.
- Diversion may be conducted at Katarungang Pambarangay.
- Police investigation, inquest, prelim proceedings 👆👆
- Duty of punong barangay/ law enforcement officer when there is no diversion shall:
Within 3 days from determination of absence of jurisdiction
Forward the records of the case to the law enforcement officer, prosecutor or the
appropriate court, as the case may be.
The document transmitting said records shall display the word CHILD in bold letters.
- Offender is over 70 years of age is only a GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. But art 68
(penalty imposed upon a person under 18 yrs of age) does not include in this case.
Effects of its mitigation:
a. When he committed an offense punishable by death, that penalty shall not imposed
(art 47 par 1)
b. When death sentence is already imposed, it shall be suspended and commuted (art
83 – suspension and execution of death sentence) to penalty of reclusion perpetua
with accessory penalties provided in art 40 – perpetual absolute disqualification and
civil interdiction during 30 years ff the date if sentence unless remitted by pardon.

BASIS: diminution of intelligence – a condition of voluntariness.

PARAGRAPH 3 : THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION
TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
AS THAT COMMITTED

- Only when the facts proven show that there is NOTABLE and EVIDENT DISPROPORTION
Between MEANS employed and its CONSEQUENCES.
a. Husband quarrelling with wife, punched her in hypertrophied spleen, she died.
b. Accused gave him a single blow with bolo in the right arm and did not repeat the blow.
Death was due to neglect of medical treatment resulted from hemorrhage.
c. Accused no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. People v ural

- Intention being an internal state, must be judged by external acts.

Is judged not only by the proportion of means and the evil produced BUT ALSO BY THE FACT
THAT THE BLOW WAS OR WAS NOT AIMED AT THE VITAL PART OF THE BODY.
It may be deduced from facts that Ural has no intention to kill the victim but to maltreat him
that when he realized the fearful consequence, he allowed the victim to seek medical
treatment.
- Situation 1: where accused fired a loaded revolver at the deceased and killed him
TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MEANS EMPLOYED AS BEING SUFFICIENT TO
PRODUCE EVIL WHICH RESULTED THAT HE INTENDED THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF
HIS ACT. THERE IS LACK OF INTENTION
- Situation 2 : the accused boxed her, held her on the neck and pressed it down while she was
lying on the floor and he was on top of her.
- Situation 3 : assailant inflicted serious and fatal wound in the abdomen with a bolo. Having
clearly shown THE LOCATION of the wound and his PERVERSE intention of producing the injury.
Not entitled to mitigating. Fatal injury was the natural and almost inevitable consequence.

Manifestations that the accused INTENDED the wrong committed:

1. Weapon used
2. Part of the body injured
3. Injury inflicted
4. Manner it is inflicted
Examples:
A. Accused used a heavy club in attacking the deceased, whome he followed some distance giving
him no opportunity to defend himself.
B. Stabs another using a lethal weapon on vital parts of the body where death could easily be
anticipated
C. Or any acts that tend to negative any notion that the plan was anything less than to finish the
victim
D. Intention can be inferred from the fact that he used a deadly weapon and fired the victim
almost POINT BLANK hitting in abdomen causing him death.
E. Act of one is the act of all sufficient for conspiracy Negated mitigation.
F. Inflicting stab wounds in a rapid succession negates mitigation. Negates lack of intention.

- Article 13 par 3 not applicable when offender employed BRUTE FORCE for it contradicts lack of
intention.
 - Knowing that the X was very tender in age, weak in body, helpless and defenseless. She knew or
ought to have known the natural and inevitable result of her act.
- It is the INTENTION AT THE MOMENT when he is committing the crime which is considered.
Not part of the original plan or the planning stage but during the act it was compounded into
more serious act clearly showing to inflict serious injuries.

- LACK OF INTENTION to commit so grave a wrong – mitigates

Example: Robbery with homicide- having satisfactorily forcing entrance through the door which
was then closed, though the accused were aware that the victim was at behind the door, but
there is NO CLEAR SHOWIG that as they ever retaliate against occupants.

APPRECIATED IN MURDER QUALIFIED by circumstances BASED ON MANNER OF COMMISSION,

not on the state of mind.
Example: they decided to have X be beaten up. The deed was accomplished. He died. Though it
was not the intention to kill X. But but murder results form the PRESENCE OF QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES ( premeditation and treachery)

LACK OF INTENT TO KILL, NOT MITIGATING IN PHYSICAL INJURIES

If victim who do not die as a result of the assault, It reduced the felony to physical injuries, not
mitigation.

Mitigating when Victim Dies:

- People v pugay – as part of their fun-making the accused merely intended to set the deceased
on fire.
- Garcia v People – the physical injuries he inflicted could NOT HAVE RESULTED NATURALLY AND
LOGICALLY in actual death of the victim. Owing to the fact that the deceased heart was in good
condition.

NOT APPLICABLE TO FELONIES BY NEGLIGENCE

ART 224 evasion through negligence (of the officer charged with the custody of the
escaping prisoner) arresto mayor
Reason: intent being replaced by imprudence, negligence is not diminished. Since there
are two kinds of felonies. Art 3.

Unintentional abortion: when acts with violence shall cause the killing due to the expulsion of
the foetus from the womb, but was done unintentionally. Vaginal hemorrhage when the preggy fell her
buttocks on the floor.

THIS ONLY APPLIES TO OFFENSES RESULTING IN PHYSICAL INJURIES OR MATERIAL HARM

Not defamation or slander.
Can be applied to malversation or slander.
Of not intention to commit so grave a wrong. While used in paying someone’s debt, she
restituted all but some.

BASIS: INTENT IS DIMINISHED

PARAGRAPH 4 : THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
ON THE PART OF THR OFFENDED PARTY
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT

Provocation – unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of

Exciting
Inciting
Irritating anyone
1. Must be sufficient
2. Originate from the offended party
3. Be immediate to the act

Sufficient- must be adequate to excite a person

To commit the wrong
And must Accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.
Depends on:
A. Act
B. Social standing
C. Place and time

Must be immediate to the commission of the crime. There should be no interval ha having had time to
regain his reason and exercise self control.
Vague threats not sufficient.
Lapse of time allowed bet grave offense and vindication
For it was the influence thereof, by reason of gravity and circumstances under which it was
inflicted until the crime was committed.
Greater leniency in case of vindication is due that it concerns the HONOR OF THE PERSON worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.