Art. 12 Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.

The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed
an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court
shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
2) A person under nine years of age
3) A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless
he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of
this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the
care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance; otherwise, he shall be committed to the
care of some institution or person mentioned in said Article
80.
4) Any person, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention
of causing it
5) Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force
6) Any persons who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear or an equal or greater injury
7) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting

circumstances commits a crime, although by complete
absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will
or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.

Burden of Proof
Any of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter
of defense and the same must be proved by the defendant
to the satisfaction or the court.
IMBECILE vs INSANITY
Imbecile exempted in all cases from criminal liability

One who, while advanced in age, has mental development

comparable to that of children between two and seven
years of age
Insanity not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during
a lucid interval
One who is deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime
To constitute insanity, there must be a complete deprivation
of intelligence while committing the act, that is, that the
accused has been deprived of reason; that the acts he
committed was with least discernment; or that there be a
total deprivation of the freedom of will
The mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough,
especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his
acts. At most, it is only a mitigating circumstance.
Burden of Proof: The defense must prove that the
accused was insane at the time of the commission of the
crime because the presumption is always in favor of the
accused.
Evidence of Insanity: must refer to the time preceding the
act under the prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution
What does insanity cover: dementia praecox, homicidal
attack, delusions
Schizophrenia: most common form of psychosis
Chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly
called dementia praceox
Kleptomania:
o If the unlawful act of the accused is due to his mental
disease or a mental defect, producing an irresistible
impulse, as when the accused has been deprived or
has lost the power of his will which would enable him
to prevent himself from doing the act.
o If the mental disease or mental defect of the accused
only diminishes the exercise of his will power, and did
not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, then,

kleptomania, if it be the result of his mental disease or

mental defect, is only a mitigating circumstance
Epilepsy chronic nervous disease characterized by fits,
occurring at intervals, attended by convulsive motions of
muscles and loss of consciousness
o If the accused claims to be epileptic when he
committed the offense, he is not exempt from criminal
liability
Feeblemindedness not exempting, because the offender
could distinguish right from wrong
Pedophilia not insanity
Amnesia not a defense to a criminal charge unless it is
shown by competent proof that the accused did not know
the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong

OTHER CASES OF LACK OF INTELLIGENCE

1. Committing a crime while in a dream
Somnambulism: sleepwalking, where the acts of the person
afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea of insanity and
must be clearly proven
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria
UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE

RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)

raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15
years of age
General Rule: A child 15 years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability
Exception: The child shall be subject to an intervention
program, as provided under Sec. 20 of the same law

Basis: complete absence of intelligence

OVER NINE YEARS OF AGE, BUT UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE

Repealed by RA 9344

Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility A

child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
responsibility. However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected
to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subject to
the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall
be enforce in accordance with existing laws.

Periods of Criminal Responsibility

a) The age of absolute irresponsibility 15 years of
age and below (Infancy)
b) The age of conditional responsibility 15 years of
age and 1 day to 18 years
c) The age of full responsibility 18 years or over
(adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
d) The age of mitigated responsibility 15 years and 1
day to 18 years, the offender acting with discernment;
over 70 years of age

Child in Conflict with the Law a person, who at the time

of the commission of the offense is below 18 years old, but
not less than 15 years and 1 day

Discernment: means the capacity of the child at the time

of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong, and the
consequences of the wrongful act; relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to the said act.
It may be shown by:
a) Manner of Committing the crime
b) Conduct of the offender

Intent refers to the desired act

Determination of Age:
1) Original or Certified True Copy of the Certificate of Live
Birth
2) In the absence of BC, similar authentic documents
such as baptismal certificates and school records or
any pertinent document that shows the birth of the
child
3) In the absence of the documents under pars 1 and 2 of
this section due to loss, destruction or unavailability,
the testimony of the child, the testimony of a member
of the family related to the child by affinity or
consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters

respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of

birth of the child pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the
Rules of Evidence, the testimonies of the other
persons, the physical appearance of the child and
other relevant evidence, shall suffice
Burden of Proof: Any person alleging the age of the CICL
has the burden of proving the age of such child
Sec. 6, A.M No. 01-1-18-SC in relation to Sec. 7 of RA
9344: If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of
the Information in court, a case for determination of age
under summary proceeding may be filed before the Family
Court which shall render its decision within 24 hours from
receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all the parties.
Sec. 6, A.M No. 01-1-18-SC, Revised Rule on Children
in CICL: In all cases involving a child, the court shall make
a categorical finding as to the age of the child
The allegation of intent to kill in the Information is sufficient
allegation of discernment
Basis: complete absence of intelligence

PERSON PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT

Elements:
1) A person is performing a lawful act
2) With due care
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident
4) Without fault or intention of causing it

Accident: is something that happens outside the sway of

our will, and although it comes about through some act of
our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.

When claim of accident is not appreciated:

1) Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by
mere accident
2) Accidental shooting is negated by threatening
words preceding it and still aiming the gun at the
prostate body of the victim, instead of immediately
helping them
3) Husband and wife had an altercation

Basis: lack of negligence and intent. Under this

circumstance, a person does not commit either an
intentional felony or culpable felony
PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Elements:
1) The compulsion is by means of physical force
2) Physical force must be irresistible
3) Physical force must come from a third person

Basis: complete absence of his freedom, an element of

voluntariness

Nature of Force Required:

1) The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a
mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will.
2) The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending and of such a nature
as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done.
3) A threat of injury is not required.
4) The compulsion must be done of such a character as
to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or
self-defense in equal combat.
PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR EQUAL INJURY

Basis: A person is compelled to commit a crime by

another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or
threat, not force of violence

Elements:
1) The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
than or at least equal to, that which he is required to
commit
2) It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that
the ordinary man would have succumbed to it

Requisites of Uncontrollable Fear

1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2) The fear must be real and imminent
3) The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
that committed

Nature of Duress: should be based on a real, imminent or

reasonable fear for ones life or limb and should be
speculative, fanciful or remote fear

The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no

opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense.
Example: A threatened to burn the house of B should the
latter not kill his (Bs) father, and B killed his father for fear
that A might burn his (Bs) house, B is not exempt from
criminal liability for the reason that the which he was
threatened was much less than the killing of his father.
In the eyes of law, nothing will excuse the act of joining an
enemy, but the fear of immediate death
Irresistible Force: the offender uses violence or physical
force to compel another person to commit a crime
Uncontrollable Fear: offender employs intimidation or
threat in compelling another to commit a crime
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Actus me invite factus non est meus actus An act
done by me against my will is not my act

WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL CAUSE

Elements:
1) The act is required by law to be done
2) A person fails to perform such act
3) His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful
or insuperable cause

Basis: he acts without intent, the third condition of

voluntariness in intentional felony

Intent: presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of

intelligence

o
o

o
o

JUSTIFYING
A person who acts by
JC
does
not
transgress the law
He does not commit a
crime, in the eyes of
law because there is
nothing unlawful in
the act, as well as in
the intention of the
actor
Act is just and lawful
No crime or civil
liability (except under
par. 4)

o
o
o

EXEMPTING
There is a crime, but
no criminal liability
Act is not justified, but
the actor is not
criminally liable
There is civil liability
except in pars. 4 and
7

ABSOLUTORY CAUSE are those where the act committed is a

crime, but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no
penalty imposed
OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
1. Article 6. The spontaneous desistance of the person who
commenced the commission of a felony before he could
perform all the acts of execution
2. Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal
liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not
be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling with the provisions of par. 1 of the next preceding
article
Par. 1, Article 19. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offenders to profit by the effects of the crime
3. Art. 247. Any legally married person who, having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the
act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
serious physical injury.
4. Art. 280, par. 3. Trespass to dwelling shall not be
applicable to any person who shall enter anothers dwelling
for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor
shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a
dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes,
taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same are
open.
5. Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability No
criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the ff persons:
i.
Spouses, ascendants and descendants or
relatives by affinity in the same line

ii.

6.

The widowed spouse with respect to the property

which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same shall have passed into the possession of
another, and
iii.
Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law if living together
Art. 344, par. 4. In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The
yprovisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the
co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of
the above-mentioned crimes.

INSTIGATION absolutory cause

Basis: A sound public policy requires that the courts shall

condemn this practice by directing the acquittal of the
accused

An internal revenue agent, representing himself as a

private individual engaged in gambling, approached the
accused and induced the latter to look for opium den where
he said he could smoke opium. The agent went to the
accused 3x to convince the latter of his desire to smoke
opium. Because of the insistence of the agent, the accused
made efforts to look for a place where he could smoke
opium until finally he found one. The accused was not
criminally liable. He was instigated to commit the crime
of smoking opium

Suppose the agent in the case induced the accused to sell

opium to him and the accused sold opium, could the
accused be held liable for illegal possession of opium?
Yes, the accused was then in possession of opium and
the mere possession of opium is a violation of the law
itself.

If the instigation is a private individual, not performing a

public function, both he and the one induced are criminally
liable for the crime committed, the former as principal by
induction; and the latter as principal by direct participation
INSTIGATION vs ENTRAPMENT
INSTIGATION
o Instigator
practically o
induces
the
would-be
accused
into
the
commission of the offense
and himself, and himself
becomes a co-principal
o The accused must be o
acquitted
o

o
o

The
law
enforcer
conceives the commission
of the crime and suggests
to the accused who adopts
the idea and carries it into
the execution
Exemption of criminal
liability
A public officer or a private
detective
induces
an
innocent person to commit
a crime and would arrest
him upon or after the
commission of a crime by
the latter

ENTRAPMENT
Ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose
of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal
plan
no bar to the prosecution
and conviction of the
lawbreaker
the entrapper resorts to
ways and means to trap
and capture a lawbreaker
while
executing
his
criminal plan.

No exemption

A person has planned, or

is about to commit, a
crime and ways and
means are resorted to by
a public officer to trap and
catch the criminal

COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES

1. Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not
proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not
constitute any crime
2. The acts of the accused fall under Art. 11 or Art. 12
3. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes
a) Spontaneous desistance
b) Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is
not against persons or property
c) Accessory is relative of the principal
d) Legal grounds for Arbitrary Detention (Art. 124)
e) Legal grounds for trespass
f) The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
is committed against a relative
g) Art. 247

h)
i)
j)
k)
l)

Marriage of the offender with the offended party

when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
seduction or acts of lasciviousness
Instigation
Guilt of the accused is not established beyond
reasonable doubt
Prescription of the crimes
Pardon by the offended party before the institution
of criminal action against chastity

MITIGATING CIRCUMTANCES

Definition: are those which, if present in the commission of

the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty

Basis: diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence,

or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender

Classes:
1. Ordinary Arts. 1-10 of Art. 13
2. Privileged
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person
under 18 years of age. When the offender is a
minor under 18 years of age and his case falls under
the provisions of JJWA, the ff rules shall be
observed:
a) A person under 15 years of age and a person
over 15 years of age who acted without
discernment, are exempt from criminal
liability
b) Upon a person over 15 and under 18 years of
age who acted with discernment, the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper period.
(As amended by RA 9344)
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is wholly excusable. A penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required
to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability.
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties
which contain three periods. In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contained 3 periods,
whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed
of 3 different penalties, each one of which forms a
period xxx the courts shall observe for the
application of the following rules, according to
whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
(5) When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
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.

PMC applicable only to particular crimes:

1. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained
within 3 days without the offender attaining his
purpose and before the institution of a criminal
action
2. Abandonment without justification of the spouse
who committed adultery
ORDINARY vs PRIVILEGED
ORDINARY
o Susceptible of being offset
by
any
aggravating
circumstance
o Produces only the effect of
applying
the
penalty
provided by law for the
crime in its minimum
period

o
o

PRIVILEGED
Cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance
he penalty lower by one of
two degrees than that
provided by law

ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. The following are

mitigating circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant

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
3. That the offender had not intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of
a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito),
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation
of the evidence for the prosecution
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow
beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise
of the will-power of the offender without however depriving
him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above-mentioned
THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING CHAPTER
it gives place to mitigation when not all the requisites
necessary to justify or exempt the act from criminal liability
are present
1. Self-Defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. State of necessity
5. Performance of duty
6. Obedience to order of superior
7. Minority above 15 but below 18
8. Causing injury by mere accident
9. Uncontrollable fear

Pars 1 and 2 of Art. 12 cannot give place to mitigation

because as stated by the SC of Spain, the mental condition
of a person is indivisible; that is, there is no middle ground
between sanity and insanity, between presence and
absence of intelligence
But, if the offender is suffering from some illness which
would diminish the exercise of his will-power without
however depriving him of consciousness of his acts, such
circumstance is considered a mitigation under par. 9 of Art.
13. It would seem that one who is suffering from mental
disease without however depriving one of consciousness of
ones act may be given the benefit of that mitigating
circumstance.

OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR SEVENTY YEARS

OLD

RA 9344
Under 18 years of age: Mitigating Circumstance
Above 15 y/o but below 18: exempted unless he
acted with discernment

Diversion: refers to an alternative, child appropriate

process of determining the responsibility and treatment of
CICL on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without resulting
to a formal court proceeding

Diversion Program: refers to the program that the CICL is

required to undergo, after he/she is found responsible, for
an offense without resorting to formal court proceeding

Offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic

mitigating circumstance

Basis: diminution of intelligence, a condition of

voluntariness
OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A
WRONG AS OF THAT COMMITTED

Intention as an internal act, must be judged by the

internal acts.
It must be judged by considering the weapon used,
the injury inflicted, and his attitude of the mind
when the accused attacked the deceased

Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is not

appreciated where the offense committed is characterized
by treachery
Lack of intent to kill is not mitigating in physical injuries
Not applicable to felonies by negligence, slander or
defamation
Not applicable to unintentional abortion
Art. 257: Unintentional abortion is committed by any
person who, by violence shall cause the killing of the foetus
in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the foetus from the
maternal womb, causing its death, but unintentionally.
Applicable to Malversation of Public Funds
Basis: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional
felony, is diminished

SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

Provocation: any unjust or improper conduct or act that

the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
any one

Requisites:
1. The provocation must be sufficient
2. It must originate from the offended party, and
3. The provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e, to
the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked

Sufficient: adequate to excite a person to commit the

wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
Examples:
1. Aggression is in retaliation for an insult, injury
or threat, the offender cannot claim SD, but
given the benefit of MC
2. The deceased abused and ill-treated the
accused by kicking and cursing the latter
3. Husband who saw his wife with another man
in their home
4. Victim hit the accused on the eye with his fist
before the fight

It must originate from the offended party

A and B were together. A hit C on the head with a piece of
stone from his sling-shot and ran away. As he could not
overtake A, C faced B and assaulted the latter. In this case,
C is not entitled to this mitigating circumstance, because B
never gave the provocation or took part in it

Threat immediately preceded the act

If A was threatened by B with bodily harm and because of
the threat, A immediately attacked and injured B, there was
a MC of threat immediately preceding the act

Vague threats not sufficient if you do not agree, beware

Sufficient Threat Follow us if you dare and we will kill you

Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

Requisites:
1. There be a grave offense done to one committing
the felony, his spouse ascendants, descendants
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degree
2. The felony is committed in vindication of such
grave offense. A lapse of tie is allowed between
the vindication and the doing of the grave offense

If A (surviving husband of B) was killed by C, Bs brothers

would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of grave offense if they cause serious physical
injuries to C immediately after learning of As death

A lapse of time is allowed between the grave offense and

the vindication

PROVOCATION
made directly to
person committing
felony

the
the

the cause that brought

about the provocation
need not be a grave
offense
it is necessary that the
provocation
or
threat
immediately preceded the

VINDICATION
the grave offense may be
committed also against the
offenders
relatives
mentioned by law
offended party must have
done a grave offense to
the offender or to his
relatives mentioned by law
it may be proximate, which
admits of an interval of
time between the grave
offense done by the
offended party and the

act, that there is no

interval of time between
the provocation and the
commission of the crime

commission of the crime of

the accused

Reason for the difference: Vindication concerns the honor

of a person, an offense which is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving
provocation or threat
Basis to determine the gravity of the offense in
vindication: social standing of the person, the place and
the time when the insult was made
Examples of Grave Offense:
1. Sarcastic remarks that the accused was petty tyrant
2. Remark of the injured party before the guests that the
accused lived at the expense of his wife
3. You are a Japanese spy. American period
4. If a person kills another for having found him in the act
of committing an attempt against his wife, he is entitled
to the benefits of this circumstance of having acted in
vindication of a grave offense against his and his wifes
honor
5. Where the injured party had insulted the father of the
accused by telling him, Pshe, ichura mong lalake
(Pshe, you are but a shrimp)
Basis: diminution of voluntariness
It cannot be counted separately with passion or obfuscation

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

Par. 6 requires the ff:

1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
produced passion or obfuscation in him

Reason: When there are causes naturally producing in a

person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and selfcontrol, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will-power

Rule: Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating

circumstance when it arose from lawful sentiments

Even if there is actually passion or obfuscation, there

is no MC when:
1. The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness or
2. The act is committed in a spirit of revenge

Requisites of Passion or Obfuscation:

1. There be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind
2. The said act which produced the obfuscation was
not far removed from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time, during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
3.
No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, or several hours
or half an hour
It cannot be invoked when relationship is illegitimate
The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous
relations with a woman is a powerful instigator of jealousy
and prone to produce anger and obfuscation
It may be invoked when it lawfully arises from causes
existing only in the honest belief of the offender
It cannot co-exist with treachery and evident pre-meditation
Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION vs IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
o Mitigating
o Exempting
o Cannot give rise to o Requires physical force
irresistible force
o Offender himself
o Requires physical force
o Arises
from
lawful o unlawful
sentiments
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION vs PROVOCATION
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
PROVOCATION
o produced by an impulse o comes from the injured
which may be caused by
party
provocation
o the
offense
which o immediately preceded the
engenders perturbation of
act
mind
need
not
be
immediate
o effect is the loss of reason o same
and self-control on the part
of the offender