You are on page 1of 2

Mitigating Circumstances: Ordinary Mitigating 1.

) Incomplete elements of a justifying circumstance or exempting circumstance (such as incomplete self-defense, because a complete self-defense is a justifying circumstance) 2.) Offender is below 18 or over 70 (modified by RA 9344) 3.) The offender didn't intend to commit so grave a wrong ( praeter intentionem) as what was committed 4.) The offended party sufficiently provoked/threatened the offender immediately before the offender acted 5.) The crime was committed to vindicate a grave offense committed by the offended party on the offender, his spouse, ascendants and descendants 6.) Acting on a powerful impulse that naturally produces passion and obfuscation 7.) Voluntary surrender or plea of guilty in court before the prosecution can produce evidence 8.) Offender is deaf, mute, blind or suffers from some other physical defect that restricts his means of action, defense of communication with his fellow human beings 9.) If the offender suffers from an illness that diminishes his willpower but doesn't deprive him of being conscious of his acts 10.) Analogous circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances butprivileged mitigating circumstances can't. Ordinary mitigating circumstances affect only the periods of an imposable penalty but privileged mitigating circumstances affect or reduce the imposable penalty by degrees. Praeter intentionem happens when somebody already was planning to do something bad but his actions ended up producing something worse. This won't apply in the following instances: a.) Felonies that don't cause material or physical harm b.) Felonies through culpa (fault) c.) The accused reasonably anticipated the seriousness of the result by reason of the mode of committing the crime and what he used in doing it Praeter intentionem isn't the same as aberratio ictus. Aberratio ictus takes place when the offender was already planning to hurt someone but his actions hit a different person instead. Aberratio ictus isn't mitigating. Praeter intentionem and aberratio ictus are also different from error in personae. Error in personae involves a mistake in the identity of the victim.While both aberratio ictus and error in personae both involve deliberate injury toward the victim, error in personae happens when the offender mistook the victim for his intended target. Aberratio ictus, on the other hand, happens when there wasno mistake in the victim's identity but the offender's acts injured someone else. Neitheraberratio ictus nor error in personae are mitigating but praeter intentionem is. If the victim provoked the offender, that becomes a mitigating circumstance because the victim is partly responsible for the crime the offender committed. Provocation, however, must be immediate. If not, it fails to qualify as a mitigating circumstance and can even be used against the accused. This is not, however, the same in the case of vindication. Vindication for a wrong done need not be immediate, only proximate. Vindication alsoneed not be for a crime. Passion or obfuscation requires the following: 1.) An unlawful act of the victim which produces such a state of mind in the accused 2.) No appreciable lapse of time between the victim's offense and the accused's crime 3.) The act causing the obfuscation was caused by the victim Generally, passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance involves legitimate relationships. There are exceptions, however, such as common-law spouses (People vs. Yuman, 61 Phil. 786) and mistresses (People vs. Bello, GR L-18792, February 28, 1964.) It will also be appreciated even if the relationship isn't true, as long as the accused honestly believed it (People vs. Guhiting, 88 Phil. 672.) Kleptomania, pyromania, monomania, nymphomania or stayriasis, if proven, will be considered mitigating in lack of willpower. Analogous circumstances may include (but aren't limited to) the following: 1.) Extreme poverty, which is similar to a state of necessity and may apply to crimes against property but not against persons (People vs. Macbul, 74 Phil. 436, People vs. Agustin et al. GR L-18368, March 31, 1966)

2.) Outrage over an unpaid debt or property taken by the victim without payment (People vs. Managa et al. GR L-39528, November 19, 1982) is similar to vindication or obfuscation 3.) Appeal to esprit de corps (People vs. Villamora, 86 Phil. 287) is similar to passion 4.) Illegal possession of firearms after wartime (People vs. Quemel, 76 Phil 135) is similar to praeter intentionem 5.) Voluntary return of funds is equal to voluntary surrender (People vs. Velasquez, 72 Phil. 980 6.) Testifying for the prosecution without being discharged from the information is like entering a plea of guilty (People vs. Navasca et al., GR L-28107, March 15, 1977) 7.) Acting out of embarrassment and fear caused by the victim because of the accused's gambling debts (People vs. Ong et al., GR L-34497, January 30, 1975) 8.) Retaliating after being assaulted in a public dance (the accused was a well-known and respected person) is similar to vindication (People vs. Libria, 95 Phil. 398) 9.) If the accused was over 60 but his eyesight was poor and he immediately reported his falsification via negligence (OMG! It really does happen!) is similar to being over 70 and voluntary surrender (People vs. Reantillo, CA-GR 307, July 27, 1938) Mitigating Circumstances: Privileged Mitigating Mitigating circumstances, if present, will reduce the penalty and not relieve a person of liability for the crime that he committed. They will not change the nature of the crime. They are based on either the diminution of freedom of action, intelligence or intent, or on the offender's lesser perversity (read: less bad.) Mitigating circumstances fall into 2 categories: ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating. Ordinary mitigating circumstances are those that are enumerated in Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code. Privileged mitigating circumstances are found in other parts of the Revised Penal Code and RA 9344. Privileged mitigating circumstances are applicable only to particular crimes. In this post, we'll talk about privileged mitigating circumstances. Art. 13, par. 2 and Art. 68, both of the Revised Penal Code, have been modified/repealed by RA 9344. People therefore over 15 but under 18 years old are exempt from criminal liability if they didn't act with discernment and, if they did, will get a penalty next lower than what is prescribed by law. In Art. 69, the penalty is lowered by 1 or 2 degrees if the act of the perpetrator isn't fully excusable, such as in incomplete self-defense. In case the penalty the law prescribes contains 3 periods either as a single divisible penalty or one that has 3 different penalties, each will form a period. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances; privileged mitigating circumstances can't. If an ordinary mitigating circumstance isn't offset by an aggravating circumstance the penalty is considered to be applied in its minimum period. Privileged mitigating circumstances have the effect of imposing a penalty 1 or 2 degrees lower than what is prescribed by law.