SEATWORK IN CRIMINAL LAW I

24 AUGUST 2019

1. Enumerate and discuss extensively the elements that must be established by

the accused in order for the court to appreciate in his/her
favor the circumstances under Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 11 - The elements required for the accused to establish a justifying
circumstance are the following:
! If the accused acted in self-defense of himself or of his rights, provided,
that there had been an unlawful aggression by someone who attacked him,
there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed in order to repel
the attack, and the accused did not provoke or the provocation induced
was not sufficient.
! The accused may prove that there was unlawful aggression if there was an
immediate and imminent threat or intimidating attitude with material
aggression; however, it is to be noted that when the unlawful aggression
no longer exists, the accused cannot act in self-defense (killing or hurting)
anymore.
! For the means employed by the accused be considered reasonably
necessary, his act must be in rational equivalence to the unlawful
aggression of the attacker. Although, the accused needs to prove that in
repelling the danger upon him, there were no other available means and
he could not coolly choose other available means had they been available
during the unlawful aggression. Also, if the aggressor were stronger,
larger, aggressive, with a violent temperament, with criminal records, and
provoked the accused, and started the aggression, the accused may use
means that are greater than the attacker ’ s. Finally, if the accused is a
police officer, he must not only defend or repeal the aggression on him,
but he must overcome his opponent while in the function of his duty.
Generally, the provocation done by the accused should not be sufficient;
however, had it been otherwise, the provocation must be ignored if the
aggression by accused was not proximate and immediate.
! If the accused defended his relatives or their rights. The relatives who the
accused may defend are the following: his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, relatives by
affinity in the same degree, and relatives by consanguinity until the fourth
civil degree (first cousins). It shall be noted that the accused must have
defended them if there was an unlawful aggression, the means he
employed are reasonably necessary to prevent or repeal the attacker, and
he did not take part in the provocation done by the relative attacked.
! If the accused defended a stranger or of his rights, the accused must not
be motivated by revenge, resentment, or other evil motives; however,
 unlawful aggression must be done on the stranger and the means
employed by the accused must be reasonably necessary to repeal or
prevent the aggression on the stranger.
! If the accused caused damage to another so that he could avoid an evil or
injury, the accused is not criminally liable, but will be civilly liable, but
the requisites in doing such are that the evil avoided actually exists and
the injury of such evil will cause more damage than avoiding it, and how
it was avoided was the only practical and less harmful way of doing it.
! If the accused is acting in fulfillment of a duty or exercising his right or
Office, he is not criminally liable.
! If the accused is acting in due obedience to a Superior who issued an
Order for a lawful purpose.

Article 12 – exempting circumstances of a criminal liability are stated herein;

! The accused may be exempted from criminal liability if his counsel
proves that he is an imbecile or an insane who did not act in lucid interval
in committing a felony. The former is defined as someone who is
advanced in age, but he has a mental capacity or development of children
who are two to seven year old. The latter is someone that is seriously
mentally ill. With that, both states are generally exempted from criminal
liability. When such exemption have been successfully proven, the court
will order the accused’s hospital or asylum confinement and he will not
be permitted to leave unless the court permits.
! Under Sec. 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the minimum age of criminal
responsibility is 15 years old. Thus, if the accused is below the said age,
he is exempted from criminal liability. Also, if he is above 15, but below
18 years old, he is equally exempt from the said liability with the
condition that he shall join an intervention program. Although, the civil
liability that arose from the act shall not be exempted as well.
! Exemption may also be warranted if the accused was performing a lawful
act in due care, but he accidentally causes injury, and there was no fault or
intention in doing such.
! If the accused proves that he was acting under a compulsion of an
irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury; wherein the accused is compelled to commit a crime for
the reasons that the aggressor employed the means of force, violence,
intimidation, or threat.
! Lastly, the accused is exempted from criminal liability if he did not abide
by what the law says because of a lawful or insuperable cause or physical
impossibility.
 Article 13 - The following are mitigating circumstances:
! Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18
years.
! To be exempt from criminal liability under R.A No. 9344, two conditions
must be present:
(1) That the offender is over 15 and under 18 years old; and
(2) That he does not act with discernment.
Therefore, if the minor over 15 and under 18 years of age acted with
discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating circumstance, because not
all the requisites necessary to exmpt from criminal liability are present.
! Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.
Under paragraph 4 of Article 12, there are four requisites that must be
present in order to exempt one from criminal liability, namely:
a) A person is performing a lawful act;
b) With due care;
c) He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
d) Without fault or intention of causing it.
In effect, there is a mitigating circumstance, because the penalty is lower
than that provided for intentional felony.
! Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. Under
paragraph 6 of Article 12, uncontrollable fear is an exempting
circumstance if the following requisites are present:
1) That the treat which caused the fear was of an evil greater than, or
at least equal to, that which he was required to commit;
2) That it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that an
ordinary person would have succumbed to it(uncontrollable).
If only one of these requisites is present, there is only a mitigating
circumstance.

2. Provide a case digest for one decided case on each of the

justifying, exempting and mitigating circumstances. Make sure that the case
that you will be summarizing is not included in the syllabus provided to you
earlier.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
! Castañares vs People (G.R. No. L-41269-70)
Facts: Castañares was charged before the Court of First Instance of homicide
for the death of Manuel Pacheco and Felizardo Pacheco. He admitted of killing
the two but however, interposed his defense the justifying circumstance of
self-defense. The lower court ruled him guilty. However, on appeal in the Court
of Appeals, it was decided that it was in favor of mitigating circumstance of
unlawful aggression since it was established. Then a motion was filed in the
Supreme Court for a petition for review seeking the reversal of the case and
acquitting him of the crimes charged.
 Issue: Whether or not Castañares could be acquitted based on his defense of
justifying circumstance of Self-Defense.
Ruling: The Court ruled that Castañares is acquitted of the crime because
without a doubt, all the requisites for a Self-Defense to be justifying
circumstance is present in this case. Therefore, the decision of the lower court
and Court of Appeals are set aside and Castañares was acquitted of the crime.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
! People vs Sta. Ana (G.R. No. 103974)
Facts: Sta. Ana was convicted of the crime of parricide and sentenced with
reclusion perpetua by the lower court for killing his wife. It was appealed to the
Supreme Court for the reversal of the decision on the ground that the accused
was insane at the time of the crime. He was examined by Dr. Canlas and was
found out to be suffering from “organic mental syndrome”, however, his
intelligence was found to be “within average levels”
Issue: Whether or not Sta. Ana can be exempt from criminal liability based on
his ground of insanity.
Ruling: The Court ruled that Sta. Ana is not exempt in his grounds of insanity
since it was shown in the medical results that his judgment and mental faculties
were not so impaired for him to be exempt. For someone to be exempt, it must
be proven that there really is an insanity and mental impairment. However, in
this case, it was not proven even by medical records. Therefore, Sta. Ana was
sentenced guilty of the crime parricide.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
! People vs Parohinog (G.R. No. L-47462)
Facts: Parohinog was convicted of murder by the lower court. He appealed to
the Court of Appeals and wanted to plea of the lower offense of homicide.
However it was not changed and therefore brought to the Supreme Court as the
accused contends that he has two mitigating circumstances; first, him
voluntarily surrendering and second, the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of grave abuse.
Issue: Whether or not Parohinog was entitled to the two mitigating
circumstances mentioned.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Parohinog is entitled of the mitigating
circumstances mentioned in the case as there were sufficient evidence proving
those. Therefore the Supreme Court found Parohinog guilty of the crime of
homicide with two mitigating circumstances.

3. Enumerate and explain the distinctions between ordinary and privileged

mitigating circumstances?
There are two kinds of mitigating circumstances namely: (1) ordinary mitigating
circumstances which can be offset by aggravating circumstances and produces only the
effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum period.
Once it was not offset by a generic aggravating circumstances, it would reduce the
imposable penalty to its minimum period. Furthermore, it reduces the penalty by
period.
(2) Privileged mitigating circumstances are mitigating circumstances that cannot
be offset by aggravating circumstances. It produce the effect which impose upon the
offender, a penalty lower to one or two provided by law for the crime. The reduction of
penalty in privileged mitigating circumstances, unlike ordinary mitigating
circumstances are by degree. One example of privileged mitigating circumstance is
Minority, while voluntary plea is an example of ordinary mitigating circumstance. It is
important to note that, when in the computation of penalties there are aggravating
circumstances, mitigating circumstances both ordinary and privileged, the presence of
privileged mitigating circumstance takes preference over all other things.

4. May the accused invoke accidental self-defense as a justifying circumstance?

Explain.
Accidental self-defense cannot be invoked. If the self-defense is accidental, then
there must have been no unlawful aggression or there was no actual threat that pushed
the person to defend himself, which means that the threat was merely imaginary which
caused him to commit accidental self-defense when it was not an action that he was
supposed to commit. Self-defense is a direct act to promote self-preservation. Thus,
accidental self-defense cannot be invoked as a justifying circumstance.
Self-defense itself is considered to be a justifying circumstance, under Article 13
of the Revised Penal Code which means that the person who did the act does not incur
any criminal liability. It is also not limited to one’s life, as it also covers the defense of
honor, chastity, and property that one owns. Under Art. 13, there are three
circumstances that may provoke a person to do self-defense. First, Unlawful aggression,
must at all times be present because if it does not exist then there is no self-defense.
Without unlawful aggression, the second circumstance will not have any effect since it
is heavily reliant on the first circumstance.
Unlawful aggression has three elements: (1) there must be a physical or material
attack or assault; (2) the attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent; and (3)
the attack or assault must be unlawful. The test for unlawful aggression is that there
must have been an actual threat and not an imaginary threat and that the aggression
puts the life or the safety of the victim in real peril.
Second, there must be a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. The factors that need to be considered are the nature and the number of
weapons used by the aggressor; the physical condition, size, weight, and other personal
circumstances of the aggressor versus that of the person defending himself; and the
place and location of the assault. These factors would determine whether the means
that was employed by the person defending himself is reasonably necessary for him to
prevent or repel the aggression. Lastly, there must be a lack of sufficient provocation
on the part of the person defending himself. Sufficient provocation means that there
was an act which is adequate to stir a person to do the wrongful act and when it is
proportionate to the gravity of the act.
5. May the accused invoke Battered Woman Syndrome as a justifying
circumstance?
It may be invoked by the accused, provided that the two requisites for it to be a
justifying circumstance were met. These are: (1) The three phases of “ cycle of
violence ” of the battered woman syndrome; and (2) The cycle must have been met
more than once.
Under the three phases of cycle of violence” are: (1) Tension-building phase –
minor verbal or physical abuse occurs or other form of hostile behavior towards the
battered. This leads to; (2) Acute battering incident – an unpredictable and inevitable
incident that can cause even bystanders or intervenors to get hurt. Additionally, such
act is characterized by brutality, destructiveness, or even death. After such, the (3)
Tranquil and loving phase starts – when the battering stops and the couple experience
relief and the batterer show love, tenderness and nurture towards his partner. In
addition to that, it must be noted that for a battered woman to be qualified to invoke
such defense other than the requirements set above, she must have an intimate
relationship with the batterer.

6. Discuss the difference between entrapment and instigation.

Entrapment is when an entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. The means employed originates from the
mindset of the criminal. It is where a person has planned to commit a crime and the
ways and means are resorted by a public officer to trap and catch the offender. It does
not exempt the offender from criminal liability and cannot be used as a defense. While,
Instigation is where the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the
commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. It is where a public
officer or private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would
arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter. The law enforcer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the
idea and carries it into execution. Unlike the former, instigation exempts the criminal
from liability and is an absolutory cause.

7. What is the test in determining the validity of a buy-bust operation?

In determining the validity of a buy bust operation, a detective would disguise as
a private individual and will act as a co-principal of the “would-be accused” into the
commission of the offense. In doing so, ways and means are resorted to, by the
investigator, for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution
of his criminal plan. It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its
commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the
decoy solicitation ’ of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives
feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission.
The deception made by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was
committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective. It must be
provided that the original design was formed independently of such agent.
8. Distinguish the effect of validly proving the existence of justifying
circumstance from that of an exempting circumstance.
In validly proving the existence of justifying circumstance, the accused can be
exempt from criminal liability because the person is presumed to have acted in
accordance to law, while in an exempting circumstance, the accused can also be
exempt from criminal liability, however, it is based on the ground that the agent of the
crime has complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, intent, and absence of
negligence in doing the crime. In the justifying circumstance, the person who
committed the act is presumed to have done no crime, while in exempting
circumstance, the person who committed the act still committed a crime, however, due
to the absence of conditions which constitutes free will and voluntariness, he/she will
be exempt from criminal liability.

9. In relation to Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, discuss who can invoke
the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
The nature of minority never gives an option for an ordinary mitigating
circumstance; therefore, they are always granted a privileged mitigating circumstance.
They are granted this privilege under Art. 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code which was
then amended and improved by R.A. 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

10. Cite instances that are analogous to surrender and confession of

guilt. Explain.
! When a person who shot someone and is about to flee the scene of the crime saw
the police, approached them and dropped his gun and raised his hands, he is said
to have surrendered.
! If the accused was already apprehended and is already being tried in an open court
before the evidences are presented and he pleads guilty, he is said to have
confessed his guilt.
! Another example of surrender is when a person who stabbed someone, hid for a
day in his house but had a change of mind and went to the police station himself
and brought the weapon he used in the crime and voluntarily turned himself in.
! It is confession of guilt when the person is already arrested, before the arraignment
of trial, pleas and confessed his guilt to the open court.

In the surrender, for it to be mitigating, the requisites are: (1) That the offender
had not been actually arrested; (b) That the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to the latter's agent; and (3) That the surrender was voluntary.
In the confession of guilt, for it to be mitigating, the requisites are: (1) That the
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) That the confession of guilt was made
in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) That the
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
11. The accused charged with murder offered to enter a plea of guilty to the
lesser crime of homicide but such offer was rejected by the prosecutor. Trial
proceeded and the court found the accused liable only for homicide. Should the
previous offer of guilt to the lesser offense of homicide be appreciated in the
imposition of penalty against said accused? Why or why not?
Yes, the offer of guilt to the lesser offense of homicide should be appreciated.
There are three requisites for a plea of guilty to be appreciated. First, is that the
offender spontaneously confessed his guilt. Second, it must be made in open court and
lastly, that the confession was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution. In the given case, the prosecutor rejected the plea for homicide and was
charged of murder but the court found that he is guilty of homicide. Same as in the
case of People vs Parohinog, he cannot be convicted of murder since the evidence of
the prosecution only made out a case of homicide, and not murder.

12. Enumerate and explain five (5) other circumstances analogous to the
mitigating circumstance under paragraph 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Under Article 13, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code states that “...any
other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned,
authorizing the court to consider these circumstances in favor of the accused”
1) Voluntary restitution of stolen property, which is similar to voluntary surrender
mentioned in paragraph 7. Related to voluntary surrender is the voluntary restitution of
the property stolen by the person accused or immediately reimbursing the amount that
was malversed is considered to be a mitigating circumstance.
2) Impulse of jealous feeling, which is similar to passion and obfuscation.
Related to passion and obfuscation, is the action driven by impulse of jealous feeling is
considered as a mitigating circumstance if there as an act that is both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind and the act that produced the
obfuscation is not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time as described in paragraph 6.
3) Outraged feeling of creditor, which is similar to passion and obfuscation.
Related to passion and obfuscation, is the outraged feeling of a creditor is considered
as a mitigating circumstance if the requisites of the act committed by the accused is
similar to acts committed because of passion and obfuscation mentioned in paragraph
6.
4) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous to plea of guilty. Testifying for the
prosecution enables the person to do the three requisites that would be done if one is to
plea of guilty mentioned in paragraph 7, allowing the offender to use it as a mitigating
circumstance.
5) Restitution in malversation case is only a mitigating circumstance. Payment or
reimbursement is not a defense for exoneration in malversation; it may only be
considered as mitigating circumstance. This is because damage is not an element of
malversation.