You are on page 1of 6

CRIMINAL LAW

Mitigating Circumstances
-reduce the penalty imposable but do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability
-whether privileged or ordinary only serve to reduce the penalty but do not change the nature
of the crime
Ordinary
-May be offset by aggravating circumstances
-effect: penalty is applicable in its minimum period
Privileged
-Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances
-Effect: penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
Offset- cancel each other out
2 mitigating circumstances, and 1 aggravating circumstance. Cancel each other out and may
leave you with one mitigating circumstance
-offset according to the number or importance
-the law and jurisprudence does not tell us what is more important than the other
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance
-Plea of Guilty
-Passion

Aggravating
-Dwelling

If its a privileged MC
-Incomplete Self-defense (majority)

Aggravating
-Dwelling

Privileged MC will always be considered by the court


**EXAMPLE**
Reclusion Temporal (divisible penalty; meaning has maximum, medium, minimum)
-When there is neither, medium penalty
-When there is mitigating, minimum penalty
-When there is aggravating, maximum
Imposition of penalties will be taken up later
**EXAMPLE**
Homicide, 1 mitigating and 2 aggravating it doesnt mean that the penalty is automatically
KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Two Kinds
-Privileged Mitigating
1. Minority
2. Art. 69, incomplete exempting or justifying
-Ordinary Mitigating
ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. All requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant
2. Must not be a majority
Self Defense, Relatives and Strangers
-must only have unlawful aggression
State of Necessity or Avoidance of Greater Injury
-Must only have the evil to be actually present
Performance of Duty
-Since there are 2 requisites, the existence of 1 will create it into privileged mitigating
circumstance

CRIMINAL LAW
MINORITY AND OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE
-A generic or ordinary mitigating circumstance
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO A GRAVE A WRONG
-Facts proven show that there must be a notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences
-Notorious disproportion between the evil produced and the means employed
Intent is a state of mind
-We look at a persons actions
US v. Reyes, 1917
Baston and death
-Remembering that the implement was a baston, the use of which with force on the head of a
person would ordinarily fracture the cranium and cause of death
-Reyes struck a person with a baston on the head; Reyes cannot invoke a mitigating
circumstance
Pp. v Callet
-The lack of intent to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state
Urbano
-Petitioner tried to avoid the fight and killed the victim
-Petitioner helped carry the coworker to the office
Pp. v Gonzales
-This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the
means employed and the resulting crime committed
-Appellants use of a gun should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the
possible consequence of his act
-There was no mitigating circumstance, although the crime was downgraded to homicide
Not inconsistent with treachery (PP v. Enriquez)
Treachery- consciously adapt means so as to ensure the accomplishment without any risk
from affecting defense
PP v. Cagoco
-Although there was treachery, but court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of no
intention to commit so grave a wrong
Treachery was present; no intent to commit so grave a wrong
-The plan was only to cause physical injury; all of the men conspired to inflict serious injury
and death is not a remote consequence
-Court went back to Doctrine of Proximate Cause
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
-Provocation must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act
Provocation (Pp v. Nabora)
-must be adequate to excite the person to commit the crime
-must be accordingly proportionate to its gravity
Sufficient Provocation
-The act constituting the provocation
-Social standing of the person provoked
-Place and time of provocation
**EXAMPLES**

CRIMINAL LAW
-Forcing ones way into a line despite being told not to (Carrero)
-Kicking and abusing the accused for not preparing the evening meal (Firmo)
-Asking for pardon from her husband after the later saw a man jump from their window
(Marquez)
Sufficient Provocation should immediately precede the act
-There should be no interval of time between the provocation made by the offended party and
the commission of the crime by the accused
PP v Macaso
-Imminent threat should exist and thus the accused cannot invoke self-defense
-Sufficient provocation given by the victim
Immediate Vindication of a grave offense in retaliation
Grave offense is done to:
-One committing the offense
-Spouse
-Descendant and ascendants
Why does it allow
immediate= Proximate
-That the reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted lasted until
the moment the crime was committed
Time to regain composure
-Still this mitigating circumstance cannot be considered where sufficient time elapsed for the
accused to regain his composure
-Without question sufficient time had passed (Pp v. Ventura)
Grave offense NOT grave felony
Gravity of offense depends on:
-Social standing of the person subject of the grave offense
-Place
-Time when insult was made
**EXAMPLES**
-I will make a roast pig out of you (Ampar)
-You live at the expense of your wife (Rosel)
-You are a Japanese Spy (Luna) this statement was made before the attack on Pearl Harbor
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
-The accused must have acted on an impulse so powerful that it naturally induced passion or
obfuscation
(extreme emotion that would blind your reason)
1. That there be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind
2. That said act which produces the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable length of time. There can be a gap, and it needs not be
immediate
The act must be provoked by prior unjust or improper acts (US v. Taylor)
Pp v Noynay
-It must arise from lawful sentiments
Pp v Caliso
-This is not passion or obfuscation, it was actuated more by a spirit of lawlessness

CRIMINAL LAW
US v. Sarikala
-The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be considered when a long
period has intervened between the impulse which produces it and the criminal act
Must arise from lawful sentiments (US v Hicks)
-The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such
as originate from legitimate feelings not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and
immoral passions
-Why did the SC say that it was not passion and obfuscation?
-Girls refusal was not unjust because there was no obligatory bond between her and Hicks
De La Cruz
-Not about the relationship,
-It was the revelation that she was untrue to him and his discovery of her
-It was betrayal that caused the passion and obfuscation because betrayal is unjust or
improper
Legitimate or Illegitimate
Engay that natural feeling of despair in her after
Yuman-betrayal
Bello
Summary of rules in Passion and Obfuscation
-The act producing the condition of mind/impulse must be unlawful while the sentiments of
the accused from which the passion of obfuscation originate from must be lawful
-not motivated by revenge
A SINGLE FACT CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
-if there are 2 mitigating circumstances it should be treated as 1 if both arise from the same
crime
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION
-It must be spontaneous and unconditional because the offender acknowledges his guilt, or he
wishes to save the authorities from the trouble and expenses in his search and capture.
-There must always be an acknowledgment of guilt
Requisites
-offender has not been actually arrested
-offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent
-it was voluntary
Pp v. Obligado
-Accused had no other means of evading arrest and the surrender was not considered as
voluntary
Warrant of arrest; Issuance different from service (Pp v. Brana)
-Surrender after the return of the warrant is not mitigating
Surrender of himself
-Surrendering a weapon is not analogous to voluntary surrender
Person in authority or his agents
-Person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction or the power and authority to
govern and execute the laws
Agent- is one who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent
authority
Private security guards are not included

CRIMINAL LAW
Pp v. Brana- Warrant was issued but there was no evidence that he knew of the issuance of
warrant
Pp v. Agacer- 14 days after; To us the surrender was a mere afterthought undeserving of any
consideration; He knew that the authorities were looking for him
Plea of Guilty
Requisites:
1. Spontaneous
2. In open court before a court of competent jurisdiction
3. Before the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
The moment the prosecution has started the plea of guilt cant be mitigating
Pp v. Crisostomo
-An accused cannot be allowed to speculate
-Otherwise, an accused could deliberately plead not guilty at the trial court and upon
conviction and on appeal plead guilty so he can avail of the mitigating circumstance
PP v. Ortiz
-There was an entirely new information and no evidence was presented in connection with the
charges made therein before appellant entered his plea of guilty. We believe therefor that
appellant was entitled to have the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty considered in his
favor in connection with the imposition of the corresponding penalty
DEAF, DUMB, BLIND OR OTHER PHYSICAL DEFECT (art. 12, par. 9)
-Physical defect must restrict the offenders means of action, defense or communication with
fellow beings
-Restriction must relate to the mode of committing the crime
PP v. Francisco
-The limp allegedly suffered by Ricardo has not been shown to restrict his means of action
ILLNESS (art. 12, par. 9)
-The illness must diminish the exercise of will power w/o depriving him of consciousness of his
acts
-When the offender is deprived of consciousness it may be an exempting circumstance (art.
12, insanity)
SIMPLE AND FEEBLEMINDED (art. 12, par. 9)
-Accused is feebleminded warrants the finding in his favor of the mitigating circumstance
provided for in either par. 8 or par. 9 of Art. 13
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES (art. 12, par. 10)
-Owner of animal that is taken for ransom (vindication)
-Esprit de Corps (Passion or Obfuscation)
-Voluntary restitution of stolen property (voluntary surrender)
-Extreme poverty and necessity (incomplete state of necessity)
-Testifying for the prosecution (plea of guilty)
Circumstances that are not analogous
-Killing the wrong man
-Reputation of being a rascal and a bully
-Lack of irreparable damage
-Not resisting arrest
-Running amuck
Being a battered husband?

CRIMINAL LAW
Danafrata v. Pp
-SC felt sorry for him. The tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitled the petitioner to the
mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation