ARTICLE 12.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Tuesday, 17 September 2019 10:37 AM

Article 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 child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344.

Section 20, RA 9344 – If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is 15 yrs and below, the authority which
will have an initial contact with the child has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or
guardian. Said authority shall give notice to the social welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate
programs in consultation with the child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardian or
relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following: a duly
registered nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children; a local social welfare and development officer; and when or where appropriate, the DSWD. If the
child referred to herein has been found by the Local Social and Development office to be abandoned, neglected or abused
by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply with the prevention program, the proper petition for
involuntary commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to PD No.
603, otherwise known as ‘The Child and Youth Welfare Code”.

3. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (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 subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with RA No. 9344.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

4. Any person who, 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 person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of 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.

Important:
• Circumstances mentioned are a matter of defense. Hence, the burden of proof lies upon the
defendant.
• In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed BUT NO criminal liability.
○ Basis: absence of free will & voluntariness of the act

PARAGRAPH 1 DISCUSSION: ON IMBECIBILITY & INSANITY

Basis of Paragraph No. 1 – COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE, an element of voluntariness

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 1

 Imbecile
Exempt in all cases
Though advance in age, one has mental
development akin with children between 2-7 y/o
Definition: one who is deprived completely of
reason or discernment and freedom of the will at
the time of committing the crime
Insane
Not exempt if shown to be acted during lucid
interval
Acts with intelligence during lucid interval
To be exempt: there has to be a complete
deprivation of intelligence or total deprivation
of the freedom of will

Elements of insanity to be considered except from liability:

• Complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act
○ Accused is deprived of reason/
○ He acts without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of power to
discern
• Total deprivation of the freedom of the will
→ Note: mere abnormalities of mental faculties is not enough esp if offender has not lost
consciousness of his acts

Procedure when imbecile/insane committed felony:

• Court shall order his confinement in hospitals/asylums established for persons afflicted
• Must first obtain the permission of the court before one can leave
• Court has no power to permit insane person to leave the asylum without obtaining the opinion
of the Director of Health

Commission vs. Trial

Insanity at the Time of
Commission
Exempt from criminal liability
Insanity at the Time of Trial
• Sane at the time of the commission but becomes insane at trial
• Liable criminally
• Trial will be suspended until the mental capacity be restored to
stand trial

Burden of Proof to show Insanity

• Lies on the defense; must prove that accused was insane at the time of the commission
• General rule: presumption is always in favor of sanity

Evidence of Insanity.
• Refer to the time preceding the act to the very moment of its execution
○ Will not be acquitted if evidence points that insanity was subsequent to the commission
• When insanity is occasional or intermittent, presumption of its continuances does not arise
○ Example: when accused had lucid intervals, presumed that offense was committed in
one of them
○ Exception: person adjudged/declared insane or has been committed to hospital/asylum
are presumed to continue to be insane
• When defense of insanity is not credible, conviction follows

Circumstantial evidence enough to overthrow the presumption of sanity

• Circumstantial evidence will suffice to prove insanity
• Takes into account the thoughts, the motives, and emotions of the accused to determine
whether acts conform to being sane

Conditions covered by the term "Insanity"

1. Dementia praecox
- Form of psychosis producing irresistible homicidal attack/impulse brought by delusions that

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 2

 - Form of psychosis producing irresistible homicidal attack/impulse brought by delusions that
one is being interfered with sexually, or that one's property is being taken
- Accused is deprived/has lost the power of his will to prevent himself

2. Schizophrenia
- Chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality
and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions

3. Kleptomania
- 2 views:
Exempting Mitigating
• If theft is done due to one's mental disease or • If the mental disease/defect only
mental defect producing an irresistible impulse diminishes the exercise of one's
similar to that of being deprived/lost the power willpower and did not deprive him of the
of will to prevent oneself from doing the act consciousness of one's acts
• Ratio: lost the power of will=lost consciousness
of one's act

4. Epilepsy
- Chronic disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals, attended by convulsive motions of
the muscles and loss of consciousness
- Take note: accused is not exempt from criminal liability if he claims to be epileptic but was not
shown that he was under the influence when he committed the offense

Conditions NOT covered by "insanity" or "imbecility"

1. Feeblemindedness
- Not an exempting because the offender could distinguish right from wrong

2. Pedophilia
- Sexual disorder wherein one has strong, recurrent and uncontrollable sexual and physical
fantasies about children and tries to fulfill
- Not insanity because the subject could distinguish between right and wrong

3. Amnesia
- Amnesia per se cannot be a defense to a criminal charge
- Exception: shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of
his action and that it was wrong
- Mere failure to remember is not proof of mental condition

Other cases of lack of intelligence= exempting circumstances

1. Committing a crime while in a dream
- Ratio: exempting because act done was without criminal intent
 Somnambulism/sleepwalking--must be clearly proven
 Hypnotism-- debatable question

2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria

- intermittent and remittent fever caused by a protozoan parasite that invades the red blood
cells. The parasite is transmitted by mosquitoes in many tropical and subtropical regions
- Affects the nervous system and causes acute melancholia and insanity

PARAGRAPH 2 DISCUSSION: ON 15 YEARS OR UNDER

Basis of Paragraph No. 2 – COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE, an element of voluntariness

A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 3

 from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9344.
RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
- Raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15
- Child to subject to intervention program
○ Intervention refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense.

PARAGRAPH 3 DISCUSSION: ON OVER 15 Y/O BUT BELOW 18

Basis of Paragraph No. 3 – COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE

General Rule: 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
Exception: unless one has acted with discernment
- Burden of proof that a minor has acted with discernment falls to the prosecution

Periods of Criminal Liability

• Absolute Irresponsibility
• Conditional Responsibility
• Full Responsibility
• Mitigated Responsibility
15 years and below (infancy)
15 and 1 day to 18 years
18 years or over (adolescence) to 70 (majority)
15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting with
discernment; over 70 years (senility)

Child in Conflict with the Law

- Person who at the time of the commission of offense is below 18 years but not less than 15
years and one day old
- Presumption of Minority
▪ Child in conflict shall enjoy the presumption of minority and
▪ Shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be 18 years or
older at the time of commission
▪ In case of doubt to the age, it shall be resolved in the child's favor

Discernment
- Mental capacity to understand the difference between right or wrong and the consequences
of the wrongful act
- Constitutes the exception to the exemption:
▪ Mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
▪ Capacity should be determined by taking account all the facts and circumstances
▪ Appearance
▪ Attitude
▪ Comportment
▪ Behavior before & during the commission of act and during and after the trial
- Determined by:
▪ Ability to understand the moral & psychological components and its consequences
▪ Whether a child can be held responsible for such antisocial behavior
- Discernment & intent distinguished:
Intent Discernment
• Desired act of the person • Moral significance that a person ascribes to the act
• May not intend to harm • Aware of the consequences of his negligent act
SIMILARITY: Products of mental processes within a person
- Shown by:
1) Manner the crime was committed
2) Conduct of the offender after its commission

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 4

 2) Conduct of the offender after its commission

Determination of Age:
1) Certified true copy of Certificate of Live Birth (best evidence)
2) Baptismal certificates & school records or any pertinent document showing the date of birth
3) In the absence of 1&2 due to loss, destruction, unavailability:
○ Testimony of the child
○ Testimony of any member of the family by affinity or consanguinity pursuant to Sec. 40,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence
○ Testimonies of the other persons
○ The physical appearance of the child
○ Other relevant evidence

Burden of Proof of Age:

▪ Any person alleging the age of the child shall bear the burden of proving
▪ If age is contested prior filing of information in court:
○ Case for determination may be filed before the Family Court
○ Family Court shall render its decision 24hrs from receipt

Allegation of "with intent to kill" in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment

> People vs Neito
○ The information of homicide filed in court alleges the accused had the intent to kill
○ The accused pushed Lolita Padilla, 8 ½ yrs of age, into a deep place
○ The victim got drowned and died as a consequence
○ There should be an allegation that the accused acted in discernment should be deemed
amply met
○ The allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew the consequence of her unlawful
act

PARAGRAPH 4 DISCUSSION: ON ACCIDENT

Basis of Paragraph No. 4 – LACK OF NEGLIGENCE AND INTENT; NO INTENTIONAL OR CULPABLE
FELONY COMMITTED

Elements:
1. Performing a lawful act
2. Due care
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

Accident
• Something that happens outside the sway of our will and lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences
• Accident vs Negligence
Accident Negligence
• Fortuitive circumstance, event or happening • Failure to observe, for the protection of
• Event happening without any human the interest of another person, that degree
agency or event which under the of care, precaution, and vigilance which
circumstance is unusual or unexpected the circumstances justly demand
by the person to whom it happens
BOTH: Intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist
with the other

PARAGRAPH 5 DISCUSSION: ON COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 5

PARAGRAPH 5 DISCUSSION: ON COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Basis of Paragraph No. 5 – COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM, an element of voluntariness

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

Presumption: person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

Elements:
1. Compulsion by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
○ Must produce an effect upon individual that despite one's resistance, such irresistible
force reduces him to a mere instrument
3. Physical force must come from a 3rd person

Absence of irresistible force; hence cannot be used as a defense:

1. No compulsion of irresistible force
○ One cannot reason out that he was threatened with a gun by a friend (the mastermind)
if said person was armed with a rifle
2. In an impulse, passion or obfuscation

Nature of force required:

1. Irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only w/o will but against his
will
2. Duress, force, fear/intimidation must be present, imminent, and impending to induce an
apprehension of death / serious bodily harm if act is not done
3. Threat of future is not enough; compulsion must leave no opportunity to the accused for
escape/self defense

PARAGRAPH 6 DISCUSSION: ON IMPULSE OF UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Basis of Paragraph No. 6 – COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM;
"Actus me invito factus non est meus actus" (An act done by me against my will is not my act)

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

Presumption: person is compelled to commit a crime by another by means of intimidation or threat,

NOT force/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 to invoke uncontrollable fear successfully:

1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is > or at least equal to that committed

Valid defenses or not:

1. Duress
○ To be valid, duress must be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or
limb
○ Speculative, fanciful, and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear
2. Accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense
○ Threat of future is not enough
Duress becomes unavailing when accused had every opportunity to run away if he had

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 6

 ○ Duress becomes unavailing when accused had every opportunity to run away if he had
wanted to or to resist any possible aggression

Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable

Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear
Offender uses violence or physical force to Offender employs intimidation or threat in
compel another person to commit a crime compelling another to commit a crime

PARAGRAPH 7 DISCUSSION: ON FAILURE TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW

Basis of Paragraph No. 7 – ACTS WITHOUT INTENT, 3rd element of voluntariness

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

Elements:
1. Act is required by law to be done
2. Person fails to perform such act
3. Such failure was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

IN ALL EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES, INTENT IS WANTING IN THE AGENT OF THE CRIME

Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances

Justifying
• Does not transgress the law; One does not
commit any crime because there is nothing
unlawful in the act and the intention
• Act of said person is in itself both just and
lawful
• Neither crime not criminal; hence no civil
liability except when causing damage to
another in state of necessity
Exempting
• There is crime but no criminal liability
• Act is not justified but actor is not criminally
liable
• There is civil liability (except by mere accident or
failing to perform required act when prevented
by some lawful/insuperable cause

ON ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• Instances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
• Other absolutory causes in the RPC
○ Art 6 (spontaneous desistance)
○ Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt)
○ Art. 124 (violent insanity)
○ Art. 247 (death under exceptional circumstances)
○ Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to dwelling)
○ Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and malicious mischief)
○ Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the offended party in SARA (Seduction,
Abduction, Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness)
• Instigation vs Entrapment
Instigation Entrapment
• Instigator induces the would-be accused into the • Ways and means are resorted to for
commission of the offense and himself becomes the co- the purpose of trapping and capturing
principal the lawbreaker in the execution of his
criminal plan
• Absolutory cause; accused must be acquitted because • Not an absolutory cause; cannot bar
public policy requires the courts to do so the prosecution and conviction of the
law breaker

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 7

 law breaker
• Law enforcers conceive the commission of the crime and • The means originate from the mind of
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries the criminal & so does the idea and
it into execution the decision to commit the crime
• Public officer or private detective induces an innocent • Person has planned, or is about to
person to commit a crime and arrest him upon/after commit, a crime & ways and means
commission are resorted by a public officer to trap
• When done by a private individual not performing and catch the criminal
a public function, both instigator and the one
induced are criminally liable (principal by induction
& principal by direct participation)
• Assurance of immunity by public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability

ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• 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 lesser perversity of
the offender
• Classes:
Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating
Susceptible of being offset by any Cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances
aggravating circumstance
If not offset, produces only the effect of Produces the effect of imposing upon the
applying the penalty provided by law for the offender the penalty lower by one/ two
crime in its minimum period degrees than that provided by law
• ONLY reduce the penalty but do not change the nature of the crime

CRIM LAW NOTES Page 8