CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY (JEMA-A-A)

1. Justifying Circumstances – those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance

with the law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free
from both criminal and civil liabilities. (no crime, no criminal)
2. Excepting circumstances – those grounds for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act
voluntary or negligent. (there is crime but no criminal)
3. Mitigating circumstances – 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.
4. Aggravating circumstances – those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime,
serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
provided by law for the offense.
5. Alternative circumstances – those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating orc mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission.
6. Absolutory circumstances – those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiments, there is no penalty imposed.

I. Justifying Circumstances

A. Self-defense, Defense of Relatives, and Defense of a Stranger

Self- defense Defense of Relatives Defense of a Stranger
Requisites: Requisites: Requisites:
1. There must be unlawful 1. There must be 1. There must be unlawful
aggression; unlawful aggression; aggression;
2. There must be a 2. There must be a 2. There must be a
reasonable necessity of reasonable necessity of reasonable necessity of
the means employed to the means employed the means employed to
prevent or repel the to prevent or repel the prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression; unlawful aggression; unlawful aggression;
and, and, and,
3. There must be lack of 3. In case the provocation 3. The person defending be
sufficient provocation on was given by the not induced by revenge,
the part of the person person attacked, the resentment or other evil
defending himself. one making a defense motive.
had no part therein.
Who are the relatives Who are strangers?
contemplated here? -
1. Spouse; - Any person not
2. Ascendants; included in the
3. Descendants; enumeration of
4. Legitimate, natural, or relatives mentioned
adopted brothers and in paragraph 2 of
sisters or relative by Article 11 of the
affinity in the same RPC.
degrees; or,
5. Relatives by
consanguinity within
the fourth civil degree
Unlawful Aggression
A. Defined:
Is an indispensable requisite or a condition sine qua non to justify the circumstance of
self-defense (or defense of relatives or stranger) for without which, there would be
nothing to prevent or repel.
It is equivalent to assault or at least a threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind.

B. Appreciation of
1. There must be peril to one’s life, limb, or right which is either actual (danger is
present/actually exists) or imminent (at the point of happening); and,
2. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.

C. Cases
1. When aggression ceases, the offender has no more right to kill or even wound the
former aggressor. (Razon vs People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007)
2. An attack on one’s property is unlawful aggression but it is not reasonable necessary to
kill the aggressor. (Narvaez vs Regime, 121 SCRA 403, April 20, 1983)

Reasonable Necessity
1. Necessity of the actions taken; or,
2. Necessity of the means used/employed.

A. Test of reasonableness
1. Nature and quality of the weapons;
2. Physical condition, character and size of the person;
3. Other circumstances considered

B. Rational Equivalence Rule

- All attendant circumstances surrounding the act must be taken into account to
determine the reasonableness of the means employed to repel unlawful aggression.

***The doctrine of rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the
nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailant but of the
totality of circumstances surrounding the defenses vis-à-vis, the unlawful aggression.
(Espinosa vs People, G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010)
B. State of Necessity, Performance of Duty, and Obedience to an order of superior
Avoidance of Greater Fulfillment of duty or lawful Obedience to an order issued
Evil or Injury exercise of right and/or for some lawful purpose
(State of Necessity) office (Performance of Duty) (obedience to superior in
good faith.)
Requisites: Requisites: Requisites:
1. The evil sought to 1. The accused acted in the 1. An order has been
be avoided actually performance of a duty or issued by a superior;
exists; in the lawful exercise of a 2. Such order must be for
2. The injury feared be right or office; some lawful purpose;
greater than that 2. The injury caused or the 3. The means used by the
done to avoid it; offense committed be the subordinate to carry
3. There be no other necessary consequence of out such order is lawful
practical and less the due performance of
harmful means of duty or the lawful
preventing the exercise of such right or
injury. office.

Cases: Cases: Case:

1. Infliction of damage 1. A warning shot is not
or injury to another
so that a greater evil
or injury may not
befall one’s self may
be justified only if it is
taken as a last resort
and with the least
prejudice to another.
If there is another
way to avoid the
injury without causing
damage or injury to
another, then such
course should be
taken. (People vs
Punzalan, 687 SCRA
687, December
10,2012)
2. It is indispensable 2. The rules of engagement
that the state of
necessity must not be
brought about by the
intentional
provocation of the
party invoking the
same. (People vs
Retubado, 417 SCRA
393, December 10,
2003)
absolutely mandated at
all times. The directive to
issue a warning
contemplates a situation
where several options are
still available to the law
enforcers. Where the
threat to the life of the
law enforcer is already
imminent, and there is no
other option but to use
force to subdue the
offender, the law
enforcers failure to issue a 1. Arias Doctrine
warning is excusable. - All heads of office have to
(Cabanlig vs
Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA
324, July 28, 2005)
do not require the police
officer to immediately fire
his weapon if the person
to be accosted does no0t
heed his call. Pursuit
without danger should be 2. Superior Responsibility
his next move, and not
vengeance for personal
feelings or a damaged
pride. (Yapyuco vs
Sandiganbayan, 624 SCRA
470, June 25, 2012)
1. Even if the order is illegal
if it is patently legal and
the subordinate is not
aware of its illegality, the
subordinate is not liable,
for then there would only
be a mistake of fact
committed in good faith.
(Tabuena vs
Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA
332, February 7, 1997)
Some Doctrines:
rely to a reasonable extent
on their subordinates upon
whom primary
responsibility rests. Absent
a clear case of conspiracy,
this doctrine is a defense
against liability of a head of
the office.
Doctrine (Respondeat
Superior Principle)
A superior is liable for the
wrongful act of his
subordinate if he is guilty of
negligence.
 C. R.A No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act) as a Justifying
Circumstance

Section 26. - Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered
Women Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.

Battery – refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child
resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress.

Battered Women Syndrome – refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological

and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.

***A battered woman has been defined as a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include
wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to
be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at
least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it
occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered
woman. (McMaugh v. State, 612 A.2d 725 cited in People vs Genosa)

Characteristics of BW
1. The woman believes that the violence was her fault;
2. She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere;
3. She fears for her life and/or her children’s life; and’
4. She has irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Phases/stages in the Cycle of Violence

1. The tension-building phase – where minor battering occurs and the woman allow
herself to be abused in ways that to her are comparatively minor which legitimizes
the belief of the batterer that he has the right to abuse her.
2. The acute battering phase – where the battered woman usually realizes that she
cannot reason with the batterer, and that resistance would only exacerbate her
condition.
3. The tranquil, [or at least non-violent] loving phase (honeymoon period) – where the
batterer shows a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner (the battered
woman)

*** Read People Vs Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) by heart.***
 II. Exempting Circumstances

A. Imbecility or Insanity
Imbecility Insanity
Who is an imbecile? When is insanity exempting?
- One who has a mental - When there is a complete deprivation of
development intelligence or freedom of the will.
comparable to that of
children between two (2) ***The fact that a person behaves crazily is not
to seven (7) years of age conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent meaning
- One who is deprived of the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal
completely of reason or terms insane, non compos mentis, unsound mind,
discernment and idiot, or lunatic. The popular conception of the word
freedom of the will at crazy is being used to describe a person or an act
the time of committing unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may behave
the crime. (People vs in a crazy manner but it does not necessarily and
Ambal, L-52688, October conclusively prove that he is legally so. (People vs
17, 1980) Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003)
Exempt in all cases. Not exempt if he acted during lucid interval.

B. Minority (under R.A. No. 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
*** Exemption from criminal liability does not carry with it exemption from civil liability.

Children in Conflict of the Law (CICL), their exemption and punishment

Age Exemption Punishment
Child 15 years old or Total Intervention
under at the time of the exemption
commission of the
offense
Child over 15 years old Total Intervention
but below 18 years old exemption
who acted without
discernment
Child over 15 years old Dependent a. Below 6 years imprisonment
but below 18 years old – Diversion
who acted with b. Above 6 years to 12 years of
discernment imprisonment
– court discretion
c. Above 12 years imprisonment
– Trial but suspension of penalty until
the CICL reaches 21 years of age.
***Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
as determined by the child’s appearance, attitude, comportment, and behavior not only before
and during the commission of the offense but also after and during the trial. It is manifested
through: 1) the manner of committing the crime; and, 2) the conduct of the offender.

Summary of Rules (Remedial Law)

1. Judgment of Acquittal
a. The decision shall immediately take effect without suspension.
b. The decision shall be promulgated and pronounced.
2. Judgment of Conviction
a. The promulgation of the decision and the sentence shall be suspended.
b. The minor shall be ordered to undergo intervention.
 Effects of Intervention
1. There is reform on the part of the minor after intervention
- The minor shall be returned to the court to:
a. Dismiss the case; or,
b. Dismiss the charge/s against him
2. There is no reform on the part of the minor after intervention
- The minor shall be returned to the court to:
a. Promulgate the decision of the court
b. Then the court shall either:
i. Decide on the sentence; or,
ii. Extend the intervention.

C. Accident
- An occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, although it comes about
through some act of our will,
- It lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.

Requisites:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident; and,
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

Cases:
1. Accident to be exempting, presupposes that the act done is lawful. The act of accused
of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, the same not being in self-defense, is
at least, constitutes light threats. There is thus no room for the invocation of accident
as a ground for exemption. (People vs Nepomuceno, 298 SCRA 450, November 11, 1998)
2. The pointing of the gun toward her husband cannot be considered as performing a
lawful act with due care. Susan held the gun in one hand and extended it towards her
husband who was still lying in bed. Prudence dictates that when handling over a gun,
the muzzle should not be pointed to a person. Susan should have known this. Here, the
muzzle of the gun was pointed at her husband. Besides, a gun does not fire unless
there was pressure on the trigger. (People vs Latoza, G.R. No. 186128, June 23, 2010)

D. Actions under Duress

Compulsion of Irresistible Force
The force must be so irresistible as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument
who acts not only without will but
against his will.
Requisites:
1. The compulsion is by means of
physical force;
2. The physical force must be
irresistible; and,
3. The physical force must come
from a third person.
Offender uses violence or physical force
to compel another person to commit a
crime.
Impulse of Uncontrollable Fear
The compulsion must be such character
as to leave no opportunity for the
accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. (People vs Dequina,
January 19, 2011)
Requisites:
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.
Offender employs intimidation or threat
in compelling another to commit a crime.
 E. Insuperable Cause
- Some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically prevented a person to do
what the law commands.
- Applies to felonies by commission

Requisites:
1. An act is required by law to be done;
2. A person fails to perform such act; and,
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

III. Mitigating Circumstances

Classes of MC and their differences

Ordinary MC
As to source Subsections 2-10 of Article 13,
RPC
As to offset May be offset by aggravating
circumstances
AS to effect Operates to have the penalty
imposed at its minimum if not
offset by AC
Privilege MC
Subsection 1 of Article 13 and
Articles 64, 68,69 of the RPC
Cannot be offset by any ACs
Operates to reduce the penalty by 1-
2 degrees depending upon what the
law provides.

A. Incomplete JC or EC
a. Incomplete JC of self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger
- As long as Unlawful Aggression is present, any of the other requisites is absent
b. Incomplete JC of avoidance of greater evil
c. Incomplete JC of performance of duty
d. Incomplete JC of obedience to an order
e. Incomplete EC of minority (15-18 years old acted with discernment)
f. Incomplete EC of accident
g. Incomplete EC of uncontrollable fear

B. Age
Under 18 years old Over 70 years old
Privileged MC Ordinary/Generic
Exception: (when this age becomes a privileged
MC)
1. When he committed an offense punishable by
death (Article 47)
2. When death has already been imposed, it shall
be suspended and commuted (Article 83)

C. Praeter Intentionem
- Offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
- Not applicable when offender employed brute force
- Not applicable in felonies by means of negligence as well as in felonies where the
intention is immaterial
D. Provocation or threat vs Vindication of Grave Offense
Provocation Vindication
1. It is made directly (only) to the person 1. The grave offense may be committed
committing the felony. against the offender’s relatives mentioned
by the law.
1. The cause that brought about it need 2. The offended party must have done a
not be a grave offense grave offense to the offender or his
relatives mentioned by the law.
2. It is necessary that the provocation or 3. The vindication of the grave offense
threat immediately preceded the act may be proximate, (which admits of an
(there should be no interval of time interval of time between the grave offense
between provocation and the done by the offended party and the
commission of the crime) commission of the crime by the accused
3. It is a mere spite against the one giving 4. it concerns the honor of the person
the provocation or threat

***The provocation, to constitute a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient, that is,

adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate
to its gravity. (People vs Nabora, G.R. No L-48101, November 22, 1941)
***The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar as it concerns the harm inflicted
upon the person who made the provocation, but not with regard to the other victims who
did not participate in the provocation. (US vs Malabanan)
***The provocation is a requisite of incomplete self-defense if it pertains to its absence
on the part of the person defending himself. While it is mitigating circumstance per se if it
pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party. (People vs CA, G. R. No.
103613, February 23, 2001)

E. Surrender and Confession of Guilt

Voluntary Surrender
(spontaneous unconditional surrender)
Requisites:
1. That the offender had not been
actually arrested;
2. That the offender surrendered himself
to a person in authority or his agent;
and,
3. That the surrender is voluntary.
Plea of Guilt
1. That the offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt;
2. That the confession of guilt was made in
open court before the competent court;
and,
3. That the confession of guilt was made
prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution.

Requisites of Voluntariness:
1. It must be spontaneous;
2. It shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
either because: (a) he acknowledged his guilt, or, (b) he wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.

F. Others
1. Passion of Obfuscation – having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produce it.
2. Physical defect of the offender – restricts one’s means of action, defense, or
communication.
3. Illness of the offender – those that diminish the offender’s exercise of his will power or
deprive him of consciousness of his act
4. Analogous circumstances
IV. Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14 for enumeration)

Basis:
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the
felony as shown by: (a) the motivating power; (b) the place of commission; (c) the
means and ways employed; (d) the time; and, (e) the personal circumstances of the
offender/offended.

Rules on AC
1. Aggravating circumstances shall not be appreciated if: (a) They constitute a crime
especially punished by law; or (b) They are included by law in defining a crime and
prescribing a penalty therefor.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any AC inherent in the crime to such a degree
that it must necessarily accompany the commission thereof.
3. Those which arise from the (a) moral attributes of the offender; (b) his private relations
with the offended party; or, (c) any personal cause shall only serve to aggravate the
liability of the principals, accomplices, accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant even if there was conspiracy.
4. The circumstance/s which consist/s in (a) the material execution of the act; or (b) the
means employed to accomplished it shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons
(only) who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. (Except: When there is proof of conspiracy.)
5. Aggravating circumstance/s, regardless of its kind, should be specifically alleged in the
information and proved as full as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty. Such
circumstances are not presumed. (People vs Legaspi, G. R. No. 136164-65, April 20, 2001)
6. Where there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance present, one of
them will be appreciated as qualifying AC while the others will be considered as generic
aggravating.

Kinds of AC
1. Generic – those that generally apply to all crime
2. Specific – those that apply to a particular crime
3. Qualifying – those that changes the nature of the crime
4. Inherent – those must of necessity accompany the crime
5. Special

Cases:
1. The use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance if such firearm is used to
commit homicide and murder. (People vs Carino, et al., G. R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004)
2. the circumstance that a crime was committed during night time is considered
aggravating only when: (a) it facilitated the commission of the crime; or, (b) it was
especially sought for or taken advantage by the accused for the purpose of impunity.
(People vs Carino, et al., G. R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004)
2. In crimes committed by a band, a stone is considered an arm. (People vs Manlolo)
3. In evident premeditation, the following must be present: [TAS]
(a) The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(b) An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and,
(c) A sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act. (People vs Bibat, 290 SCRA 27, May 13, 1998)
4. Attack from behind is not always alevosia. It must appear that such mode of attack was
consciously adopted and the question of risk to the offender must be taken into account.
(see People vs Baldos, G.R. No. 188975, July 5, 2010)
VI. Alternative Circumstances
1. Relationship
a. MC – in crimes against person (**always aggravating in crimes against chastity, rape)
b. AC – in crimes against property
2. Intoxication
a. MC – if not habitual or if not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony
b. AC – if habitual or if intentional

***For intoxication to be mitigating, drunkenness must have affected the mental faculties
of a person. In the absence of any independent proof that the person’s alcohol intake
affected his mental faculties, intoxication is not mitigating. (People vs Mondigo)

3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender

VI. Absolutory Causes

1. Instigation

***Instigation vs entrapment (People vs Dansico, 644 SCRA 151, February 23, 2011)
Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention
to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment
of ways and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker.
To determine whether there is instigation or entrapment, the conduct of the
apprehending officer and the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime must be
examined.
This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism, or plain criminal
proactivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to
determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense insofar as they are
relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.

2. Accessories exempt from criminal liability by reason of relationship under Article 20;
3. Those exempt under Article 247 of the RPC;
4. Those exempt from the crime of theft by reason of relationship under Article 332.