Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

ARTICLE Other Sources If

What? Previous Assignments Module 8&9 Case List
11 Necessary
Paragrap The following do not Nacnac v. People, G.R. No. 191913, No jurisprudence or
h1 incur any criminal No jurisprudence March 21, 2012 commentaries available
liability: The accused file a petition, motion for
Anyone who acts in reconsideration for the following issues:
defense of his (1), (2), (3), and (4. the RTC failed to
person or rights, appreciate the petitioner's act of self-
provided that the defense). To be qualified for para 1 Art.
following 11. Of Qualifying circumstance. The
circumstances following do not incur any criminal
concur; liability: para 1. Anyone who acts in
First. Unlawful defense of his person or rights provided
aggression. that the following circumstances concur:
Second. (i) Unlawful aggression, (ii) Reasonable
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
necessity of the prevent or repel it, and (iii) Lack of
means employed to sufficient provocation on the part of the
prevent or repel it. person defending himself.
Third. Lack of
sufficient The mere act of drawing a gun cannot be
provocation on the considered unlawful aggression, but the
part of the person victim pulled and pointed and quizzed
defending himself. the trigger based on the trial testimony of
the accused his Cal 45 first to the
accused. That's when the accused
executed his first shot until the victim
continued his aggression by pointing his
caliber to the accused, then shot for the
second time on the victim's head that
caused him death. Therefore, the
accused did not act unlawful aggression
either provocation but to defend himself
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
Paragrap Anyone who acts in
h2 defense of the
person or rights of
his spouse,
ascendants,
descendants, or
legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or
sisters, or his
relatives by affinity
in the same degrees
and those
consanguinity within
the fourth civil
degree, provided
that the first and
second requisites
prescribed in the
next preceding
circumstance are
present, and the
further requisite, in
case the revocation
was given by the
person attacked,
that the one making
defense had no part
therein.
for the circumstance that may also cause
his life into death. Consequently, the
court finds accused jest depending on
himself. Or self-defense.
No jurisprudence or
No jurisprudence People v. Banasen, G.R. No. L-55487, commentaries available
Dec 21, 1983, (126 SCRA 307)
The accused (Domingo Banasen) killed
the victim (Leonardo Malong) by hitting
his forehead using a bolo during their
fighting. The accused surprisingly found
the victim on the top of his wife (Martha)
in their house or premises —accused
caught by the police in the boho's groove
near to their house whilst the victim body
was laid dragged to a nearly yard .
These circumstances happened at 2:00
in the early morning in Pangasinan.
The accused is not criminally liable para
2, Art. 11. RPC. Anyone who acts in
defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, the accused is a plea of
defense of the person of his wife, having
carnal knowledge by the victim whilst
crying and begging for help—provided
that the first and second requisites
were prescribed. The victim first act of
unlawful aggression by attacking the
accused using his bolo, hence there is
no unlawful aggression on the part of the
accused, whilst the accused is taking a
self -defense, considering he was injured
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
Paragrap Anyone who acts in
h3 defense of the
person or rights of a
stranger, provided
that the first and
second requisites
mentioned in the
first circumstance of
this Article are
present and that the
person defending be
not induced by
revenge,
resentment, or other
evil motive.
on his knee and hand made by the victim
bolo in defense of victim aggression.
Last, there is no provocation on the part
of the accused. Therefore, the three
requisites required by law to justify the
offense under the mentioned article was
are present. Banasen was acquitted.
No jurisprudence
No jurisprudence People v. Ancheta, et al.,
G.R.No. L-45344,
November 96, 1938
The broken engagement
between Bibian Sanson
and the accused
(Ancheta) was caused by
the fighting of Sanson’s
Brother and Justice
Salazar. Where the
accused, pass-by in front
of the store or adjacent to
the Sanson family house.
Subsequently, the fight
started when Bibian
approached and hugged
the accused, where the
brother and Salazar
punched and took the
accused service piston.
The accused returned to
his garrison, but he orders
his servicemen del
Rosario and Gaspi, and
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

others to search for his

lose piston in Sanson
residence. Whilst in the
Sanson residence,
Salazar was shot and
killed.

The accused, Del Rosario

and Gaspi, guilty of
Murder by killing Justice
Guillermo Salazar. Para
3, defense of person or
rights of a stranger, was
invoked by the accused,
during the search of the
accused service team, to
Justice Guillermo Salazar,
to look for the loose
piston, the justice fire a
shot to Del Rosario but it
missed then attempting to
r-shot thus was killed by
Gaspi. Article 11, Gaspi
justified in killing Justice
Guillermo Salazar, having
acted in defense of
stranger.

Paragrap Any person who, in Tan vs Standard Vacuum

h4 order to avoid an Oil Co.
evil or injury, does
an act which causes G.R. No. L-4160
damage to another,
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

provided that the

following requisites Justifying circumstance
are present;
Julito Sto. Domingo and
First. That the evil Imigidio Rico were
sought to be charged with arson
avoided actually through reckless
exists; imprudence.

Second. That the The truck of the Standard

injury feared be Vacuum Oil Co was driven
greater than that by Julito Sto. Domingo,
done to avoid it; who was helped Igmidio
Rico.
Third. That there be
no other practical While the gasoline was
and less harmful being discharged to the
means of preventing underground tank, it
it. caught fire.

In order to prevent the

burning of the station, the
truck was driven to the
middle of the street and
there abandoned.

That after the

corresponding trial, the
said defendants were
acquitted and defendant
Julio Sto. Domingo was
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

acquitted, on the ground

that he so acted causing
damage to another in
order to avoid a greater
evil or injury, under article
11, paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code,

Under the foregoing facts,

there can be doubt that
had the accused Julio Sto.
Domingo not taken the
gasoline tank-truck trailer
out in the street, a bigger
conflagration would have
occurred in the street
(Rizal Avenue Extension),
and, perhaps, there might
have been several deaths.

And bearing in mind the

provisions of Article 11
paragraph 4 of the
Revised Penal Code the
accused Julito Sto.
Domingo incurred no
criminal liability

Paragrap Any person who People vs. Oanis Lacanilao vs. CA No jurisprudence or
h5 acts in the fulfillment G.R. No. L-47722 G.R. No. L-34940 commentaries available
of a duty or in the NOT justifying
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
lawful exercise of a circumstance.
right or office.
The accused Antonio Z.
Oanis and Alberto Galanta,
chief of police of Cabanatuan
and corporal of the Philippine
Constabulary, respectively
charged for the death of
Serapio Tecson and found
guilty by the lower court of
homicide through reckless
imprudence.
While Tecson was sleeping
in his room with his back
towards the door, Oanis and
Galanta, on sight, fired at him
simultaneously or
successively, believing him to
be Anselmo Balagtas but
without having made
previously any reasonable
inquiry as to his identity.
There is, however, a
mitigating circumstance of
weight consisting in the
incomplete justifying
circumstance defined in
article 11, No. 5, of the
Revised Penal Code.
According to such legal
NOT justifying circumstance.
The petitioner (Bernardo Lacanilao), a
policeman, guilty of homicide for the
death of one Ceferino Erese.
The Court of Appeals found that the
accused, the petitioner herein, acted in
the performance of a duty but that the
shooting of the victim was not the
necessary consequence of the due
performance thereof,
Therefore, crediting to him the mitigating
circumstance consisting of the
incomplete justifying circumstance of
fulfillment of duty.
The appellant is to be commended for
responding to the call of duty when he
tried to stop the victim and the latter's
companions from their drunken and
disorderly conduct, nevertheless he
cannot be exonerated from overdoing his
fulfillment of duty to the extent of
admittedly shooting and thereby killing
said victim.
The present case would have fallen
under No. 5 of Article 11 if the two
conditions therefor, viz.:
(1) that the accused acted in the
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

provision, a person incurs no performance of a duty or in the lawful

criminal liability when he acts
in the fulfillment of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a
right or office.
There are two requisites in
order that the circumstance
may be taken as a justifying
one:
exercise of a right or office and
(2) that the injury or offense committed
be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
But here only the first condition is
fulfilled; the second is wanting.

(a) that the offender acted in Consequently, Article 69 is applicable, it

the performance of a duty or favors the accused as it provides for a
in the lawful exercise of a penalty lower than that prescribed by law
right or office; and when the crime committed is not wholly
justifiable.
(b) that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary Ambil vs. Sandiganbayan
consequence of the due G.R. No. 175457
performance of such duty or
the lawful exercise of such NOT justifying circumstance.
right or office.
Petitioner Ambil, Jr. testified that he was
In the instance case, only the the Governor of Eastern Samar from
first requisite is present — 1998 to 2001.
appellants have acted in the
performance of a duty. According to him, it was upon the advice
of Adalim’s lawyers that he directed the
The second requisite is transfer of Adalim’s detention to his
wanting for the crime by them home.
committed is not the
necessary consequence of a He cites poor security in the provincial
due performance of their jail as the primary reason for taking
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
duty.
Their duty was to arrest
Balagtas or to get him dead
or alive if resistance is
offered by him and they are
overpowered.
But through impatience or
over-anxiety or in their desire
to take no chances, they
have exceeded in the
fulfillment of such duty by
killing the person whom they
believed to be Balagtas
without any resistance from
him and without making any
previous inquiry as to his
identity.
According to Article 69 of the
Revised Penal Code, the
penalty lower by one or two
degrees than that prescribed
by law shall, in such case, be
imposed.
Paera vs. People
G.R. No. 181626
NOT justifying
circumstance.
personal custody of Adalim considering
that the latter would be in the company of
inmates who were put away by his sister
and guards identified with his political
opponents.
On September 16, 2005, the
Sandiganbayan, First Division,
promulgated the assailed
Decision finding petitioners guilty of
violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or
the ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES ACT.
The court ruled that in moving Adalim to
a private residence, petitioners have
conspired to accord him unwarranted
benefits in the form of more comfortable
quarters with access to television and
other privileges that other detainees do
not enjoy.
It stressed that under the Rules, no
person under detention by legal process
shall be released or transferred except
upon order of the court or when he is
admitted to bail.
Petitioner Ambil, Jr. invokes the justifying
circumstance of fulfillment of duty or
lawful exercise of right or office who was
then a Governor. In order for this
justifying circumstance to apply, two
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

requisites must be satisfied:

As punong barangay of
Mampas, Bacong, Negros (1) the accused acted in the performance
Oriental, petitioner Santiago of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
Paera (petitioner) allocated right or office; and
his constituents’ use of
communal water coming from (2) the injury caused or the offense
a communal tank by limiting committed be the necessary
distribution to the residents of consequence of the due performance of
Mampas, Bacong. duty or the lawful exercise of such right
or office. 
The following day, petitioner
inspected the tank after Both requisites are lacking in petitioner
constituents complained of Ambil, Jr.’s case. Ambil, Jr. exceeded his
water supply interruption. authority when he ordered the transfer
Petitioner discovered a tap and detention of Adalim at his house.
from the main line which he
promptly disconnected. To Needless to state, the resulting violation
stem the flow of water from of the Anti-Graft Law did not proceed
the ensuing leak, petitioner, from the due performance of his duty or
using a borrowed bolo, lawful exercise of his office.
fashioned a wooden plug. It
was at this point when
Indalecio arrived.
.
The petitioner, without any
warning, picked-up his bolo
and charged towards
Indalecio, shouting "Patyon
tikaw!" (I will kill you!).
Indalecio ran for safety,
passing along the way his
wife, Diosetea Darong
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

(Diosetea) who had followed

him to the water tank. Upon
seeing petitioner, Diosetea
inquired what was the matter.
Instead of replying, petitioner
shouted "Wala koy gipili,
bisag babaye ka, patyon
tikaw!" ("I don’t spare
anyone, even if you are a
woman, I will kill you!").
Diosetea similarly scampered
and sought refuge in the
nearby house of a relative.
Unable to pursue Diosetea,
petitioner turned his attention
back to Indalecio. As
petitioner chased Indalecio,
he passed Vicente, and,
recognizing the latter,
repeatedly thrust his bolo
towards him, shouting "Bisag
gulang ka, buk-on nako imo
ulo!" ("Even if you are old, I
will crack open your skull!").

The justifying circumstance

of fulfillment of duty or
exercise of office under the
5th paragraph of Article 11 of
the RPC lies upon proof that
the offense committed was
the necessary consequence
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

of the due performance of
duty or the lawful exercise of
office.

Arguably, petitioner acted in

the performance of his duty
to "ensure delivery of basic
services" when he barred the
Darongs’ access to the
communal water tank.

Nevertheless, petitioner
exceeded the bounds of his
office when he successively
chased the Darongs with a
bladed weapon, threatening
harm on their persons, for
violating his order

Yapyuco vs
Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 120744

NOT justifying
circumstance.

Accused/petitioners Salvador
Yapyuco, Jr. (Yapyuco)
identified himself as the
commander of the Sindalan
Police Substation in San
Fernando, Pampanga and
the superior officer of
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

petitioners Cunanan and

Puno and of the accused Yu.

He narrated that in the

afternoon of April 5, 1988,
when Yu suddenly received a
summon for police
assistance from David, who
supposedly was instructed by
Pamintuan (barangay
captains of Quebiawan),
concerning a reported
presence of armed NPA
members in Quebiawan

Hence, he decided to
respond and instructed his
men to put on their uniforms
and bring their M-16 rifles
with them.

Yapyuco continued that at

the place appointed, he and
his group met with
Pamintuan who told him that
he had earlier spotted four
(4) men carrying long
firearms.

Pamintuan allegedly
intimated that he and
barangay captain Mario
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

Reyes of nearby Del Carmen

had also brought in a number
of armed men and that there
were likewise Cafgu
members convened at the
residence of Naron.

Moments later, Pamintuan

announced the approach of
his suspects, hence
Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno
took post in the middle of the
road at the curve where the
Tamaraw jeepney conveying
the victims would make an
inevitable turn.

As the jeepney came much

closer, Pamintuan
announced that it was the
target vehicle, so he
(Yapyuco), with Cunanan
and Puno behind him,
allegedly flagged it down and
signaled for it to stop.

He claimed that instead of

stopping, the jeepney
accelerated and swerved to
its left.

This allegedly inspired him,

Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

and his fellow police officers

Cunanan and Puno, to fire
warning shots but the
jeepney continued pacing
forward, hence they were
impelled to fire at the tires
thereof and instantaneously,
gunshots allegedly came
bursting from the direction of
Naron’s house directly at the
subject jeepney.

Yapyuco recalled that one of

the occupants of the jeepney
then alighted and exclaimed
at Pamintuan that they were
San Miguel Corporation
employees.

Holding their fire, Yapyuco

and his men then
immediately searched the
vehicle but found no firearms
but instead, two injured
passengers whom they
loaded into his jeepney and
delivered to nearby St.
Francis Hospital.

From there he and his men

returned to the scene
supposedly to investigate
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

and look for the people who

fired directly at the jeepney.
They found no one; the
Tamaraw jeepney was
likewise gone.

The petitioner invoked

justifying circumstance under
para 5, Art 11.

Court’s ruling:

The court finds that the

requisites for justification
under Article 11 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code do not
obtain in this case.

The availability of the

justifying circumstance of
fulfillment of duty or lawful
exercise of a right or office
under Article 11 (5) of the
Revised Penal Code rests on
proof that

(a) the accused acted in the

performance of his duty or in
the lawful exercise of his right
or office, and

(b) the injury caused or the

Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

offense committed is the

necessary consequence of
the due performance of such
duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.

The justification is based on

the complete absence of
intent and negligence on the
part of the accused,
inasmuch as guilt of a felony
connotes that it was
committed with criminal intent
or with fault or negligence.

Presence of all the accused

at the situs of the incident is
a legitimate law enforcement
operation.

Theirs, therefore, is the

specific duty to identify the
occupants of their suspect
vehicle and search for
firearms inside it to validate
the information they had
received;

They may even effect a

bloodless arrest should they
find cause to believe that
their suspects had just
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

committed, were committing

or were bound to commit a
crime.

Lawlessness is to be dealt
with according to the law.
Only absolute necessity
justifies the use of force, and
it is incumbent on herein
petitioners to prove such
necessity.

We find, however, that

petitioners failed in that
respect.

Although the employment of

powerful firearms does not
necessarily connote
unnecessary force,
petitioners in this case do not
seem to have been
confronted with the rational
necessity to open fire at the
moving jeepney occupied by
the victims.

No explanation is offered why

they, in that instant, were
inclined for a violent attack at
their suspects except
perhaps their over-anxiety or
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

impatience or simply their

careless disposition to take
no chances.

Clearly, they exceeded the

fulfillment of police duties the
moment they actualized such
resolve, thereby inflicting
Licup with a mortal bullet
wound, causing injury to
Villanueva and exposing the
rest of the passengers of the
jeepney to grave danger to
life and limb – all of which
could not have been the
necessary consequence of
the fulfillment of their duties.

Paragrap Any person who No jurisprudence Apelado vs People No jurisprudence or

h6 acts in obedience to G.R. No. 175482 commentaries available
an order issued by a
superior for some NOT justifying circumstance.
lawful purpose.
Petitioner Apelado, Sr. testified that he
was the Provincial Jail Warden of
Eastern Samar.

He recalls that on September 6, 1998,

SPO3 Felipe Balano fetched him at
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

home to assist in the arrest of Mayor

Adalim.

At the provincial jail, petitioner was

confronted by Atty. White who informed
him that he was under the governor, in
the latter’s capacity as a provincial jailer.

Petitioner claims that it is for this reason

that he submitted to the governor’s order
to relinquish custody of Adalim.

Further, petitioner Apelado, Sr. described

the physical condition of the jail to be
dilapidated and undermanned.

Petitioner Apelado, Sr. invoked that he is

entitled to the justifying circumstance of
obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose under
Article 11(6) of the RPC.

For this justifying circumstance to apply,

the following requisites must be present:

(1) an order has been issued by a

superior;

(2) such order must be for some lawful

purpose; and

(3) the means used by the subordinate to

carry out said order is lawful.
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
Article 12, Art. 12.
Paragrap Circumstances
h1 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
Only the first requisite is present in this
case.
While the order for Adalim’s transfer
emanated from petitioner Ambil, Jr., who
was then Governor, neither said order
nor the means employed by petitioner
Apelado, Sr. to carry it out was lawful.
In his capacity as the Provincial Jail
Warden of Eastern Samar, petitioner
Apelado, Sr. fetched Mayor Adalim at the
provincial jail and, unarmed with a court
order, transported him to the house of
petitioner Ambil, Jr.
No jurisprudence In People v. Bascos GR No. 19605, No jurisprudence or
Bascos killed Victoriano Romero while commentaries available
Romero was sleeping. However, due to
eveidences that was presented, including
the official declaration of Doctor
Montemayor in his capacity as acting
district health officer, "that this accused,
according to a physical examination and
investigation, is a violent maniac, and
that this mental state has continued
through many years, constituting a
danger both for himself and for the
community.", the court is convinced that
accused was a lunatic when he
committed the grave felony described in
the record and that consequently he is
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

act which the law exempt from criminal liabity, and should
defines as a felony be confined in an insane asylum.
(delito), the court
shall order his When a defendant in a criminal case
confinement in one interposes the defense of mental
of the hospitals or incapacity, the burden of establishing
asylums established that fact rests upon him.
for persons thus
afflicted, which he In the case of People v. Bonoan G.R.
shall not be No. L-45130 , Bonoan stabbed Carlos
permitted to leave Guison on his left side leading to his
without first death. However, since Bonoan was
obtaining the demented at the time he perpetrated the
permission of the crime, he is consequently exempted from
same court. criminal liability, and was ordered for his
confinement in a hospital for the insane.
This ruling was based on the following
evidence:

1. Persons with dementia praecox are

disqualified from legal responsibility
because they have no control of their
acts;
2. Bonoan had an insomnia attack, a
symptom leading to dementia praecox,
four days prior to act according to Dr.
Francisco
3. Defendant suffered from manic
depressive psychosis according to Dr.
Joson
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

In the case of People v. Rafanan G.R.

No. L-54135, one evening, the mother of
the accused called complainant to help
him close the door. When the
complainant went near him, he pulled her
inside the store and raped her despite
her resistance. After that, he warned the
complainant not to tell anyone about it or
he will kill her. Rafanan claimed that he
is suffering from schizophrenia when he
inflicted violent intentions to Estelita.

It was held that the law presumes every

man to be sane. A person accused of a
crime has the burden of proving his
affirmative allegation of insanity. Here,
appellant failed to present clear and
convincing evidence regarding his state
of mind immediately before and during
the sexual assault on Estelita. It has
been held that inquiry into the mental
state of the accused should relate to the
period immediately before or at the very
moment the act is committed. The court
added that The fact that he threatened
Estelita with death should she reveal that
she had been sexually assulted by him
indicates that he is aware of the
reprehensible moral quality of that
assault.

Here, appellant failed to present clear

and convincing evidence regarding his
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

state of mind immediately before and

during the sexual assault on Estelita.
Appellant rested his case on the
testimonies of two (2) physicians (Dr.
Jovellano and Dr. Nerit) which, however,
did not purport to characterize his mental
condition during that critical period of
time. They did not specifically relate to
circumstances occurring on or
immediately before the day of the rape.
Their testimonies consisted of broad
statements based on general behavioral
patterns of people afflicted with
schizophrenia.

2 distinguishable tests:

(a) the test of cognition -

complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the
criminal act,"
(b) the test of volition - that there be a
total deprivation freedom of the will
Paragrap 2. A person under No jurisprudence No jurisprudence RA 9344 or the "Juvenile
h2 nine years of age Justice and welfare act",
raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from 9 to
15 years of age.

Under the said law, a child

15 years of age or under
at the time of the
commission of the offense
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
Paragrap 3. A person over
h3 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 Art.
80 of this
Code.chanrobles
virtual law library
No jurisprudence Sierra v People
The accused, who testified that he was
15 years at that time, arrived holding a
knife, and told 13-year-old AAA and BBB
that he wanted to play with the. He then
had sexual intercourse with them. The
Supreme Court then held that that he is
exempted from criminal liability pursuant
to RA 9344, which raised the age of
absolute criminal irresponsibility from 9
to 15 years of age.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that
any doubt on the age of the child must
be resolved in his favor. Hence, any
doubt in this case regarding the
petitioner’s age at the time he committed
the rape should be resolved in his favor.
In other words, the testimony that the
petitioner as 15 years old when the crime
took place should be read to mean that
he was not more than 15 years old as
this is the more favorable reading that
R.A. No. 9344 directs.
In the case of People v Deliola, he raped
shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However,
the child shall be subject
to an intervention program
as provided under section
20 of the same law.
RA 9344 or the "Juvenile
Justice and welfare act",
raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from 9 to
15 years of age.
Under the said law, a child
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 subject
to an intervention program
as provided under section
20 of the same law.
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

BBB when he was 15 years and 2

months old. Ra 9344 only exempts those
who's age is 15 years or below. The
question therefore is if he acted with
descernment. The court affirmed that the
accused acted with descernment due to
the below circumstances:

(1) the victim was a helpless minor; (2)

accused-appellant secured the
consummation of the offense with a
weapon; (3) he satisfied his lust by
penetrating the victim from behind; and
(4) he threatened the victim not to report
what happened. Taking all these facts
into consideration, accusedappellant
clearly knew that what he did was wrong.

In extending the application of RA No.

9344 to give meaning to the legislative
intent of the said law, the promotion of
the welfare of a child in conflict with the
law should extend even to one who has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one
(21) years, so long as he/she committed
the crime when he/she was still a child.
The offender shall be entitled to the right
to restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration in order that he/she may be
given the chance to live a normal life and
behind; and (4) he threatened the victim
not to report what happened. Taking all
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
Paragrap Any person who, Exempting circumstances:
h4 while performing a 1. A person is performing G.R. No. 150647 September 29, 2004
lawful act with due a lawful act
care, causes an 2. Exercise of due dare
injury by mere 3. He causes injury to
accident without another by mere
fault or intention of accident
causing it. 4. Without fault or
intention of causing it.
The chauffeur, who while
driving on the proper side of
the road at a moderate
speed and with due
diligence, suddenly and
unexpectedly saw a man in
these facts into consideration,
accusedappellant clearly knew that what
he did was wrong.
In extending the application of RA No.
9344 to give meaning to the legislative
intent of the said law, the promotion of
the welfare of a child in conflict with the
law should extend even to one who has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one
(21) years, so long as he/she committed
the crime when he/she was still a child.
The offender shall be entitled to the right
to restoration, rehabilitation and
reintegration in order that he/she may be
given the chance to live a normal life and
People vs.Pomoy
In the case of People v Pomoy the
element of "accident" took place
- Drawing a weapon/gun in the course
of self-defense even if such fired and
seriously injured the assailant is a lawful
act and can be considered as done with
due care since it could not have been
done in any other manner. (1) The
grappling for the possession of the
firearm between Pomoy and Balboa (2)
The act of reflex in the course of self-
defense against Balboa.
People vs. Agliday
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
front of his vehicle coming
from the sidewalk and
crossing the street without
any warning that he would do
so, in effect being run over by
the said chauffeur, was held
not criminally liable, it being
by mere accident. Similarily,
People vs. Gaid
G.R. No. 171636
The jeepney driver however
was charge of reckless
imprudence resulting to
homicide on the ground that
he was not driving recklessly
at the time of the accident.
However, the appellate court
still found him to be negligent
when he failed "to promptly
stop his vehicle to check
what caused the sudden
jotting of its rear tire."
Paragraph Any person who Irresistible force: complete
5 acts under the absence of freedom, an
compulsion of an element of voluntariness
irresistible force. Elements:
Force, to be irresistible, must
produce such an effect on an
individual that despite of his
resistance, it reduces him to
a mere instrument and, as
G.R. No. 140794
The accused contends that he should be
acquitted on the basis of “accident”
under Art. 12 Par. 4. According to him,
he was cleaning his shotgun which then
he accidentally touched the trigger and
hit Richard. The accused also contends
that he was negligent and not be
convicted of parricide. Hence, only be
charged of reckless imprudence resulting
to homicide
People vs. Salvatierra
G.R. No. 111124 June 20, 1996
The residence of spouses, Hichiro
Kubota and Elizabeth Hammond was
robbed in the evening by five armed
men. The robbery also resulted in the
killing of Hichiro Kubota and one of the
latter’s housemaids, Hazel Arjona, both
of whom did of fatal stab wounds.
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances
such, incapable of
committing a crime. It
compels his member to act
and his mind to obey. It must
act upon him from the
outside and by a third
person. Irresistible force can
never consist in an impulse
or passion, or obfuscation. It
must consist of an
extraneous force coming
from a third person.
Paragraph Any person who Uncontrollable fear: complete
6 acts under the absence of freedom
impulse of an Elements
uncontrollable fear that the threat which causes
of an equal or the fear is of an evil greater
Another maid, Marilyn Juguilon, was
attacked with a knife by one of the
robbers during the incident but she
luckily survived the assault. Elizabeth
Hammond, her mother Epifania and
sister Diosa escaped unhurt, as did the
two young children of the Kubotas. A
considerable amount of money and
several pieces of jewelry were carted
away by the robbers.
It is based on the complete absence of
freedom on the part of the accused and
has its roots in the Latin maxim "Actus
me invito factus non est meus actus,"
which translates to "An act done by me
against my will is not my act." The
compulsion employed upon the accused
must have been of such character as to
leave no opportunity for him to spring an
escape or to himself foist any act of
defense for self-preservation. Hence, the
felony has been held unavailing where
the accused had every opportunity to run
away if he has wanted to or to resist any
possible aggression because he was
also armed.
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

greater injury. than, or at least equal to that

w/c he is required to commit
that it promises an evil of
such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would
have succumbed to it.
Duress, to be a valid
defense, should be based on
real, imminent or reasonable
fear for one’s life or limb. It
should not be inspired by
speculative, fanciful or
remote fear.
Threat of future injury is not
enough. The compulsion
must leave no opportunity to
the accused for escape or
self-defense in equal combat.
Duress is the use of violence
or physical force.
There is uncontrollable fear is
when the offender employs
intimidation or threat in
compelling another to commit
a crime, while irresistible
force is when the offender
uses violence or physical
force to compel another
person to commit a crime.
“an act done by me against
my will is not my act”
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

People vs. Ah Chong

G.R. No. L-5272  March 19,
1910

Article 1 RPC of the Penal

Code is as follows:
Crimes or misdemeanors are
voluntary acts and
ommissions punished by law.
- A person voluntarily
committing a crime or
misdemeanor shall incur
criminal liability, even though
the wrongful act committed
be different from that which
he had intended to commit.
- voluntary act is a free,
intelligent, and intentional act
- "malice" signifying the intent
- Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea - "the act itself
does not make man guilty
unless his intention were so
- “ Actus me incito factus non
est meus actus” - an act
done by me against my will is
not my act

Paragraph Any person who "Lawful or insuperable cause: People vs. Bandian
7 fails to perform an acts without intent, the third G.R. No. 45186 September 30, 1936
act required by law, condition of voluntariness in
when prevented by intentional felony The Mother who was overcome by
some lawful or Elements: severe dizziness and extreme debility,
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

insuperable cause. That an act is required by law leaving child to die. Hence, not liable for
to be done infanticide
That a person fails to perform Exempting – there is a crime but there is
such act no criminal.
That his failure to perform
such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause
Examples of lawful cause:
- To be an exempting
circumstance – Intent is
wanting
Intent – presupposes the
exercise of freedom and the
use of intelligence
Distinction between justifying
and exempting circumstance:
Priest can’t be compelled to
reveal what was confessed to
him
No available transportation –
officer not liable for arbitrary
detention
Act is not justified but the
actor is not criminally liable.
General Rule: There is civil
liability

Exception: Par 4 (causing an

injury by mere accident) and
Par 7 (lawful cause)

Justifying – person does not

transgress the law, does not
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

commit any crime because

there is nothing unlawful in
the act as well as the
intention of the actor."
Alternative
circumstances are
those which must be
taken into
consideration as
aggravating or
mitigating according
Article 15, to the nature and
No jurisprudence or
Paragrap effects of the crime No jurisprudence No jurisprudence
commentaries available
h1 and other conditions
attending its
commission. They
are, relationship,
intoxication and the
degree of instruction
and education of the
offender
Paragrap The alternative People v Ortega People v Agliday Relationship is mitigating
h2 circumstance of G.R. No. 116736 G.R. No. 140794 in crimes against property
relationship shall be • An accessory who is a • Circumstance of relationship not by analogy to the provision
taken into relative by affinity is mitigating nor aggravating if it is an of Art. 332.
consideration when exempted from criminal element of the crime
the offended party is liability provided that he did
the spouse, not profit from the effects of FACTS:
ascendant, the crime. • Ricardo’s son, Richard, tried to pacify
descendant, the quarrel Ricardo and his wife, instead
legitimate, natural, FACTS: of listening, he shot Richard.
or adopted brother • Benjamin Ortega and • Rey, victim’s brother, saw his father-
or sister, or relative Manuel Garcia guilty of appellant shoot his brother Richard with
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

by affinity in the murder of Andre Masangkay a shotgun, as he was about four (4)
same degrees of the • Garcia assisted Ortega, his meters from them.
offender. brother-in-law, to conceal the • Rey, victim’s brother, saw his father-
body of Masangkay to appellant shoot his brother Richard with
prevent its discovery. a shotgun, as he was about four (4)
• The act of Garcia assisting meters from them.
to conceal the body of the
crime is an offense that of an RULING:
accessory in the crime of • Appellant Ricardo Agliday guilty of
homicide. parricide under Art. 246 for killing his son
Richard Agliday with a shotgun
RULING:
• Garcia cannot be convicted
as an accessory under Art.
20 which states that “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 within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.”
• In this case, Garcia being a
covered relative by affinity of
the principal accused Ortega,
he is legally entitled to the
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

exempting provision under

Art. 20.

Therefore, the alternative

circumstance of relationship,
in relation to Art. 20,
exempted Garcia from
criminal liability as an
accessory.

People v Lucas
G.R. No. 108172-73
• In crimes against chastity,
such as rape, the alternative
circumstance of relationship
is aggravating.

FACTS:
• Jose Lucas guilty of
attempted rape to his
daughter Chanda Lucas

RULING:
• The alternative
circumstance of relationship
provided for in Article 15 of
the Revised Penal Code
should be appreciated
against the accused
considering that the offended
party, Chanda, is his
descendant. In crimes
against chastity, such as
 Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

rape, relationship is
aggravating.

• the aggravating
circumstance of relationship
in Criminal Case No. Q-91-
18465, the accused may
finally be sentenced to thirty-
four (34) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of
reclusion perpetua.

•aggravating circumstance,
the accused may be
sentenced in Criminal Case
No. Q-91-18466 to an
indeterminate penalty
ranging from four (4) years,
two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision correccional
maximum as minimum to ten
(10) years and one (1) day of
prision mayor maximum as
maximum.

Paragrap The intoxication of People v Ponciano People v Baroy No jurisprudence or

h3 the offender shall be G.R. No. 137520-22 commentaries available
taken into G.R. No. 86453
consideration as a • Alternative circumstance of intoxication
mitigating • Alternative circumstance of is mitigating if it was not habitual nor
circumstance when intoxication is aggravating intentional and the offender’s mental
when the intoxication is
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

the offender has habitual or intentional. faculties have affected their capacity to
committed a felony realize the wrongfulness of their actions.
in a state of FACTS:
intoxication, if the FACTS:
same is not habitual • Accused Eulogio Sanchez, • Appellants Alfredo Baroy and
or subsequent to the together with Orlando Felicisimo Nacional took turns raping
plan to commit said Silvestre, and victim Ricardo Emeliza Bueno in a vacant lot
felony but when the Rivera had a drinking spree • Barot consumed 8 bottles of alcohol,
intoxication is in Ricardo’s house. Nacional downed 7 bottles
habitual or • Tricycle driver affirmed appellant’s eyes
intentional, it shall • Appellant became drunk were flaring when they blocked the path
be considered as an and was under the influence
aggravating of drugs; that he do not know RULING:
circumstance. what happened afterward • Mitigating circumstance of intoxication
under Article 15 paragraph 3 should be
• Rowena and Alicia went
appreciated where the accused
downstairs to advise the
committed the felony in a state of
accused and companions to
intoxication, and there was no sufficient
go home but accused did not
proof that it was habitual or subsequent
want to leave so they forced
to the plan to commit the felony.
him to go home. Accused
took out a bladed weapon
• The quantity consumed by appellants
and lunged at Alicia
could certainly have affected their
capacity to realize or contemplate the
RULING:
wrongfulness of their actions. Therefore,
• Intoxication not mitigating
absent the habitual or intentional
for failing to prove that the
intoxication, appellants’ intoxication in
liquor he drank impaired his
the crime of rape should be considered
mental faculties and that his
as a mitigating circumstance.
mental faculties and that his
drinking was not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to
commit the felony
Group 1: Justifying, Aggravating, Alternative Circumstances

• Intoxication should be
considered as an
aggravating circumstance
under Article 15 paragraph 3
for being habitual but not
intentional to the commission
of the crime. There was no
showing of the appellant's
intention, determined by his
acts, prior to,
contemporaneous with and
subsequent to the
commission of the crime, to
commit robbery.

The appellant's actuation do

not show his intention to
commit robbery. But it was
admitted by the appellant
himself that he had been
drinking liquor for a long time
and he took part in at least
10 drinking sessions held in
Ricardo Rivera’s house.

• Therefore, the alternative

circumstance of intoxication
in this case is aggravating.
For appellant’s intoxication
was habitual but was not
intentional to the commission
of the crime.