You are on page 1of 3

CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE

ARTICLE 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Husband and wife fighting. Wife said that "you better die!" husband goes wild, gets a knife and stabs the
wife; acts all crazy inside the house. gets arrested. during trial, claims insanity.

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability arises.

I. AN IMBECILE or an INSANE person

An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency; exempt in all cases; deprived completely of
reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. (Ambal)
An insane person is one who has sound mind or suffers from mental; not so exempt if it can be
shown that he acted during a LUCID INTERVAL.
During Lucid interval, the insane person acts with intelligence.
The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary...
The law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were
executed unconsciously.

To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total
derivation of the freedom of the will.

For insanity to be proved, there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing
the act, that is, that the accused:
a. Be deprived of reason
b. Acts without the least discernment
c. Or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will
Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially if the offender has not lost
consciousness of his acts. It becomes only a mitigating circumstance.

No intelligence in committing a crime negates criminal intent.

BURDEN OF PROOF is on the defense.
In the instant case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated by any evidence. The
presumption of sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of reason.

PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY.
"...that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity the burden of
establishing that fact rests upon the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.”

Bascos case
Circumstantial evidence:
1. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for many years
2. the doctor who examined the accused testified that the accused was a violent maniac
3. lack of motive
PP VS BONOAN
Quantum of evidence
insanity as a defense is a confession of avoidance and such as must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Bonoan case
a. accused confined at San Lazaro Hospital twice
b. dementia precox is an exempting circumstance
c. insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of or leads to dementia precox
d. a day after his arrest he was sent to the psychopathic hospital
e. alienist reported that the accused had a form of psychosis- manic depressive psychosis
Commission vs. Trial
Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is different from insanity at the time of the trial. in
the first instance, it is an exempting circumstance, in the second the accused is not exempt but the
proceedings are suspended until the accused is fit to stand trial.
pp vs. legaspi
"mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident"
"caught with his pants down"
"mental depravity which results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the
moral system, where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes
committed under its influence." (Legaspi)
p vs. madarang
the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that
there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
Establshing insanity is a question of fact and may be established by:
a. witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused;
b. witness who has rational basis to conclude
c.
pp vs. opuran
a man's act is presumed voluntary. it is improper to assume the contrary, i.e. that acts were done
unconsciously
STRINGENT STANDARD
"the stringent standard... requires that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
act..."
- expert witness could not state legal basis
II. MINORITY
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
New concepts:
1. age of criminal responsibility
2. effects
3. presumptions
Age of Criminal Responsibility
A child fifteen years of age and under at the time of the commission
of the offense is exempt from criminal liability. (sec. 6)
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a series of
activities which are designed to address issues that caused the
child to commit and offense.
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address ssued that caused the child to
commit an offense.
Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must:
1. release parents, guardian or nearest relative
2. notify LSWDO, determine the approproiate program
3. O/W
4. NGO
5. barangay
6. local SWD or DSWD
Above 15 but below 18
without discernment- child is exempt but subject to intervention
with discernment- subject to appropriate proceedings, i.e. diversion
no exemption from civil liability