JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRC

Justifying Circumstances (Art 11) The actor commits no crime since the
circumstances enumerated in Art 11, justify his acts because they are in
accordance with law. The actor is neither criminally liable, nor civilly
liable for damages, except in Article 11, paragraph 4 when a person
commits an act to avoid a greater evil or injury. The basis of his civil
liability is found in Art 432 of the Civil Code.
Exempting Circumstances (Art 12) The actors exemption is based on
either of the following: complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, criminal intent, or absence of negligence. However, he is civilly
liable for damages.
Absolutory Causes The accused commits a crime but by reason of
public policy and public sentiment, no penalty is provided for his acts.
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of
another with the same, if it is necessary to avert an imminent danger and
the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner is
much greater. But the owner may demand indemnity for the damage
from the person benefited

SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Admission of allegations; cures all defects in the
Information Accused must prove his defense on
the strength of his own evidence, not on the
weakness of the prosecution; for even if it were
weak it could not be disbelieved after he had
admitted the killing. [People v. Cario, GR 123325,
31 March 1998, 288 SCRA 404, cited in People vs.
Ulep, GR 132547, September 20, 2000]
ANGCACO vs. PEOPLE 378 SCRA 297
LADIANA vs. PEOPLE (393 SCRA 419, GR 144293,
December 4, 2002)

SELF DEFENSE
1. URP: UA whether complete or incomplete
2. Defense of Property: Arts 429 (self-help),
536, 539 of the Civil Code, PP vs. NARVAEZ
3. PP vs. Rabanal: Aggression has ceased
4. ALMEDA v. CA: imminent danger
5. Battered woman syndrome
6. Reasonableness: Rabanal on number/nature
7. Provocation: US vs. LAUREL
8. Indicators: flight, number/nature of wounds

AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL

NORMA HERNANDEZ
TY vs. PEOPLE (G.R. 149275, September 27,
2004, 439 SCRA 220) If the evil sought to be
avoided is merely expected or anticipated or
may happen in the future, this defense is not
applicable

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR
PERFORMANCE OF RIGHT

Mistake of Fact: OANIS

People vs. DELIMA
Self-Help (Art 429): PP vs. Mamerto Narvaez
PEOPLE vs. ERNESTO ULEP (GR 132547,
September 20, 2002)
POMOY vs. PEOPLE (G.R. 150647, September
29, 2004)

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Insanity no temporary insanity
Formigones, Bonoan and Anacito Opuran re
Cognition Test or complete absence of
intelligence

Somnambulism PP vs. TANEO and motive

RA 9344
Sec 6 on Minimum Age of Criminal Resp.
Garvida vs. Sales and Art 13CC on 15 years
Discernment (Guevara vs. Almodovar, People v.
Alcabao)
ALTERNATIVE: Intervention or Diversion
- Under 15 to 15: intervention, released to parents
- Over 15 to under 18, w/o D: intervention
- Over 15 to under 18, w/ D: depending on penalty
if not more than 6 years extrajud. Diversion
more than 6 years, not more than 12 Jud. Diversion
Suspension of Sentence automatic, even if 18 at
promulgation but under 21, but see Declaratur vs. Gubaton
on Art 192 and disqualification for suspension

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Art 247: PP vs. Francis Abarca
Instigation vs Entrapment (US vs. Phelps and
PP vs. Lua Chua): facilities & decoys
PP vs. SY (GR No. 171397, September 27,
2006), objective test to determine validity of
test buy

EFFECTS OF AC-MC (Indiv. Pen.) Art 63

RA 9346: apply only when proper penalty
is death
Single indivisible: Apply regardless of MCAC
No MC or AC: apply lower penalty
1 or more AC no MC: apply higher penalty
(RA 9346)
1 or more MC no AC: apply lower penalty
Both AC-MC: offset then apply

EFFECTS AC-MC (Div. Pen.) Art 64

When there are neither AC nor MC medium (par 1)

When there is only 1 MC and no AC minimum (par 2)
When there is only 1 AC and no MC maximum (par 3)
If both AC and MC are present offset (par 4) In People
vs. Oraza, 83 Phil 633, even if there are 4 MC and no
MC, the accused cannot demand that 2 MCs would be
used to lower the penalty by 1 degree and then apply
the 2 remaining MCs to lower the same to the
minimum period. The law allows the court to fix the
penalty in the period that it may deem applicable.
When there are 2 or more MC and no AC apply
penalty next lower in degree in the period that court
may deem applicable

EFFECTS OF AC or MC on penalty
AC which are not taken into account in increasing the penalty:
AC constituting a crime
AC in defining a crime and prescribing a penalty
AC which are inherent necessarily accompany its commission (e.g. use of fire
in arson, EP in robbery or estafa)

AC or MC which shall only aggravate or mitigate liability of persons to

whom they are attendant:
AC/MC arising from moral attributes (evident premeditation)
AC/MC arising from private relations with offended party (relationship,
obvious ingratitude, abuse of confidence)
AC/MC arising from personal cause (Taking advantage of public position, Insult
or disrespect of rank, age or sex, crime committed in the dwelling of the
offended party, if the latter has not given provocation)

AC or MC which shall aggravate or mitigate the liability of persons who

had KNOWLEDGE of them at the time of execution or their cooperation
therein:
Those consisting in the material execution
Those constituting means to accomplish the crime

KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRC.

Ordinary MC Lowers the penalty to the minimum
period. These are offset by a generic aggravating
circumstances
Privileged MC
Art 68. above 15 but under 18 - 1 degree
Art 69. Incomplete justifying or mitigating 1 or 2 degrees
(unlawful aggression required in incomplete self-defense,
defense of relatives or strangers)
Art 67. Incomplete accident penalty akin to Art 365
Other PMIC applicable only to certain crimes, i.e. illegal
detention for less than 3 days, infanticide to conceal
dishonor, abortion to conceal dishonor

Art 64(5) Lowering the penalty by 1 degree is not a

privileged MC because it only applies to divisible
penalties

PROVOCATION vs. VINDICATION

Provocation can only be committed against the
accused while the grave offense could be
committed against spouse, etc.
Provocation need not constitute a grave offense
Provocation must immediately precede the act
while the grave offense need only be proximate,
allowing a certain time interval

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

Passion & obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not in
the spirit of revenge, resentment or unlawful motives
COMMON LAW RELATIONS: US vs. Hicks, general rule:

People vs. De la Cruz, 22 Phil 429, with another

man in flagrante, impulse from revelation of
unfaithfulness
People vs. Engay (CA, 47 OG 4306), 15 years when
the man married another woman
P & O not mitigating when committed in a spirit of lawlessness: People
vs. Sanico (CA 46 OG 98), PEOPLE vs. MARCELO BATES (400 SCRA 95; GR
139907, March 28, 2003)

Voluntary Surrender and Plea of Guilty

Voluntary Surrender; The surrender must be voluntary:

JOEL LUCES vs. PEOPLE (395 SCRA 524; GR 149492,

January 20, 2003) fled from the crime scene
Plea of Guilt; The offender should have spontaneously
confessed his guilt: In People v. Sabilul, a conditional
plea of guilty is not a mitigating circumstance.
Plea of guilt; That the confession must be made before
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution:
PEOPLE vs. DANIELA (401 SCRA 519; GR 139230, April
24, 2003) improvident plea of guilty after prosecution
started presenting its evidence

KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRC.

Generic Aggravating Circumstances:

Qualifying Circumstances:
Inherent Aggravating Circumstances:
Specific Aggravating Circumstances: People vs. Escote, GR 140756, April
4, 2003
Special Aggravating Circumstances: These are considered in imposing the
death penalty for those offenses under RA 7659 or qualified rape under
RA 8353. This AC imposes a mandatory imposable penalty which is not
offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances. Example: Abusing public
position or a crime committed by an organized crime group or crime
syndicate under Art 62 (par. 1), ransom for kidnapping (Art 267);
All types of AC should be alleged in the Information: Under Rule Sec 9 110, all
qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary
concise language, in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its QC and
AC and for the court to pronounce judg

ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

Not aggravating when the offenders public office is an element of
the offense: This is not aggravating in malversation or falsification
by public officials, because it is inherent in these crimes. Another
example is Art. 171, where falsification is committed by a public
officer, either because: he prepared the falsified document, or he is
the custodian of the document, or that he simply participated in
making the falsified document.
The mere fact that a gun is used by a policeman to commit the
crime is not aggravating: There must be independent proof that he
abused his public position in committing the crime.
This is a special aggravating circumstance: Art 62 (1A) provides that
if advantage is taken by the offender of his public position while
committing a felony, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Thus,
this cannot be offset by an Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Death as mandatory imposable penalty in rape: RA 8353 imposes
the death penalty if the offender is a member of the AFP, PNP or
other law enforcement or penal institution and he takes advantage
of his public position to facilitate the rape

DWELLING
Offended Party Must Give No Provocation: If the provocation is not
immediate, the AC can still be appreciated.
Inherent in robbery with force upon things: These crimes are
necessarily committed inside the dwelling of the victim.
The dwelling must be used exclusively for residential purpose: It is
not aggravating if the dwelling is utilized for commercial purposes
since the house is no longer used exclusively for peace and serenity.
Dwelling also includes dependencies of the house such as the foot
of the staircase and the enclosure under the house in People v.
Joya (237 SCRA 9) dependency arises when there is a common door
between a store and a house. If the door is separate, then they are
separate and there is no AC of dwelling. It has also been held that
even if a store were not used exclusively for rest and comfort but
shares a common door, dwelling would still be attendant. The store
is a dependency and is incidental to the house [some houses may
occasionally sell certain goods and wares]. But in People v. Caliso, it
is not appreciated if both parties are occupants of the same house.

REPEAT OFFENDERS
RECIDIVISM At the TIME OF TRIAL, previously
convicted by final judgement of another crime
embraced in the same title
Reiteracion or Habituality previously punished for an
offense equal or greater penalty; or 2 or more crimes
to which it attaches a lighter penalty

Habitual Delinquency or Multi-Recidivism in Art 62

w/n 10 years, 3rd time: serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa (not a separate offense
but a separate and additional penalty)
Quasi-Residivism (Art 160) committing a crime while
serving sentence (another offense)

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
PEOPLE vs. FELICIANO (GR. 127759-60,
September 24, 2001) police men at police station;
no EP When there is no showing how and when
the plan to kill was decided or what time had
elapsed before it was carried out, there is no
evident premeditation.
PEOPLE vs. FELIX VENTURA (GR 148145-46, July 5,
2004) walked for 3 to 4 kilometers for more than
1 hour dark, conscious EP - act of arming
themselves with a gun and a knife constitutes
direct evidence of a careful and deliberate plan to
carry out a killing.

TREACHERY
TREACHERY SPECIFIC TO CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
(People vs. Escote, supra)
Means-methods-forms must be consciously adopted
People vs. Inocencio Gonzales (GR 139542, Jun 2101)
Treachery refers to the means, hence present in
aberration ictus - People vs. Gilbert Basao, GR 128286,
July 20, 1999 assassination of PC Lieutenant, wife
CONTINUOUS AGGRESSION: (a) when the aggression is
continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of
the assault, or at the incipient stage or at the offset (People
v. Caete); and (b) when the assault was not continuous in
that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery
was present at the moment the fatal blow was given (US v.
Baluyot)

IGNOMINY

People vs. Torrifiel cogon

grass
People vs. Saylan dog style
People vs. Bumidang rape
in front of father