MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCES
◦ Mitigating circumstances are
those which, if present in the
commission of the crime, do not
entirely free the actor from
criminal liability but serve only
to reduce the penalty.

2
Mitigating Circumstances
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter , when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he
had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned. 3
◦ Circumstances which can mitigate criminal liability
◦ 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance;
◦ 2. The offender is under 18 or over 70 years old;
◦ 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (praeter
intentionem);
◦ 4. Sufficient threat or provocation;
◦ 5. Vindication of a grave offense;
◦ 6. Passion or obfuscation;
◦ 7. Voluntary surrender;
◦ 8. Physical defect;
◦ 9. Illness of the offender;
◦ 10. Similar and analogous circumstances; and
◦ 11. Privileged mitigating circumstances 4
Classes of Mitigating Circumstances
ORDINARY MITIGATING
Can be offset by aggravating
circumstances.
Ordinary mitigating
circumstances, if not offset, will
operate to reduce the penalty to
the minimum period, provided
the penalty is a divisible one.
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
Can never be offset by any
aggravating circumstance.
Privileged mitigating
circumstances operate to reduce
the penalty by one to two
degrees, depending upon what
the law provides.
5
1
Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(1)

6
Incomplete justifying/exempting
circumstance means that not all the
requisites to justify the act are present or
not all the requisites to exempt from
criminal liability are present.
◦ If less than the majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or
exempt from criminal liability are present, the offender shall only be
entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
◦ If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from
criminal liability are present, the offender shall be given the benefit of
a privileged mitigating circumstance. The imposable penalty shall be
lowered by one or two degrees. When there are only two conditions to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability, the presence of one
shall be regarded as the majority.
7
2
Minority and over seventy
years old
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(2)

8
Offenders who are:
1. Over 15 but under 18 years old who acted with
discernment; and
2. Over 70 years old
The basis is diminution of intelligence

BRACKET EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

15 and under Exempting circumstance.
Exempting circumstance, if he acted without
discernment.
Over 15 under 18
Mitigating circumstance, if he acted with
discernment.
18 to 70 Full criminal responsibility.
Mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death
Over 70 penalty; execution of death sentence if already
imposed is suspended and commuted.

9
3
Lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(3)

10
It is necessary that there be a notable and
evident disproportion between the means
employed by the offender compared to
that of the resulting felony. If the resulting
felony could be expected from the means
employed, the circumstance of praeter
intentionem cannot be availed.
The basis is diminution of intent

11
People v Ural
FACTS: Policeman Ural was convicted of murder, and is
sentenced to reclusion perpetua because he beat up, and
burned a prisoner named Felix Napola. Ural is contending that
he did not intend to kill the prisoner.
ISSUE: WON he can be granted of the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong?
RULING: YES. Based from the facts presented, he does not have
any intent to kill the victim. He just wanted to maltreat the victim
because of Napola’s drunken condition. He even secured
medical treatment for the victim at the municipal dispensary.

12
4
Sufficient provocation on the part
of the offended party
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(4)

13
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act
of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
irritating anyone.

Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation

1. Provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must originate from the offended party; and
3. It must be immediate to the act.
The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.

14
People v Leonor
FACTS: Christopher Leonor was convicted of robbery with
homicide when he stabbed the victim, Dr. Tarlengco. The latter
died because of the injury from the stabbing. Leonor was
convicted of Robbery with homicide by both RTC and CA. Leonor
is contending that he only stabbed the victim because he was
provoked when Tarlengco pushed and cursed at him.
ISSUE: WON Leonor should be granted the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation as per Art. 13(4) of the RPC?
RULING: NO. In order for the mitigating circumstance to be
granted, the provocation must be proportionate to the gravity of
the retaliatory act. At the present case, cursing and pushing is not
enough provocation to retaliate with homicide.
15
5
Immediate vindication
of a grave offense
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(5)

16
Requisites of vindication of a grave offense
1. Grave offense has been done to the one committing the
felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degree; and
2. A felony is committed in vindication of such grave
offense.

The basis is the diminution of conditions of

voluntariness.

17
SUFFICIENT THREAT OR VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE
PROVOCATION
It is made directly only to the person The grave offense may be committed also
committing the felony. against the offender’s relatives mentioned
in the law.
The cause that brought about the The offended party must have done a
provocation need not be a grave offense. grave offense against the offender or his
relatives mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the provocation or The vindication of the grave offense may
threat immediately preceded the act. be proximate which admits of interval of
There must be no interval of time between time between the grave offense
the provocation and the commission of the committed by the offended party and the
crime. commission of the

18
US v Ampar
FACTS: Clemente Ampar, the accused, asked the victim Modesto
Patobo for some delicacy, the victim declined. He even made
degrading remarks about the accused, and his family in front of
the other guests. While Patobo was squatting down, the accused
struck him on the head with an ex leading to the former’s death.
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of immediate
vindication of a grave offense can be applied to this case?
RULING: YES. The offense the accused was endeavoring to
vindicate might be considered by other people as a mere trifle.
However, for the defendant as an old man, it was a serious
matter when the victim made those degrading remarks in front
of the other guests.
19
People v Pajares
FACTS: The brother of the accused Leandro Pajares was mauled
by the group of Diosdado Viojan. The mauling is a big insult, and
offensive to the accused’s family. Hence, 10 hours after the mauling
of his brother, Pajares inflicted a club wound on the head of Viojan
which then led to Viojan’s death.
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication
of a grave offense can be applied to this case?
RULING: NO. The appellant’s sole defense is alibi. It may be true
that accused’s brother was indeed mauled by Viojan’s group.
However, there’s already a lapse of 10 hrs between the mauling of
Pajares’ brother and the clubbing of Viojan. Such interval of time
was more than sufficient to enable accused to recover his serenity.
20
6 Passion or obfuscation
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(6)

21
Requisites of passion or obfuscation
1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
produced passion or obfuscation in him
3. The passion must arise from legitimate sentiments
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power.

22
PROVOCATION PASSION/ OBFUSCATION
The provocation comes from the injured It is produced by an impulse which may
party. case provocation.

The offense need not be immediate. It is

It must immediately precede the only required that the influence thereof
commission of the crime. lasts until the moment the crime is
committed.

23
US v Hicks
FACTS: Augustus Hicks, the accused is an Afro-American who was
illicitly living together with the deceased Augustina Sola. The victim
quitted living with Hicks. After a few days, she contracted a new
relationship with another Negro who is living in the house of her
brother-in-law. Hicks went there, and that’s where he shot the left
side of the victim’s chest which led to her death.
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation is applicable to this case?
RULING: NO. The crime Hicks committed was with the presence
of treachery as he shot Sola while the latter was unarmed,
unprepared, and at a time, she was just listening to the
conversation. It will only be a mitigating circumstance if it arose
from legitimate feelings, not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy and immoral passions. 24
US v De la Cruz
FACTS: Hilario de la Cruz, in the heat of passion, killed
his querida when he caught her red-handed in carnal
communication with a mutual acquaintance. The trial
court found him guilty of homicide.
ISSUE: WON the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation is applicable to this case?
RULING: NO. The court ruled that the defendant acted
upon impulse due to the sudden revelation that the
victim was untrue to him, and his discovery of her in
flagrante in the arms of another man.
25
7
Voluntary surrender
and confession of guilt
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(7)

26
Requisites of voluntary surrender
1. That the offender had not been actually arrested
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or the latter’s agent
3.That the surrender must be voluntary and
spontaneous

The basis is the lesser perversity of the offender. The

offender is willing to accept the consequences of the
wrong he has done which thereby saves the government
the effort, time and expenses to be incurred in searching
for him.

27
8 Physical defect
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(8)

28
Requisites of physical defect
1. The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering from some physical defect; and
2. Such physical defect restricts his means of action,
defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
The basis is the diminution of the element of
voluntariness.

29
9 Illness
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(9)

30
Requisites of illness of the offender
1. Illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will
power; and
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender the
consciousness of his acts.

The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.

31
People v Javier
FACTS: Eduardo Javier was found guilty of Parricide by the RTC
when he killed his wife of 41 years. Javier’s defense is that he had
killed his wife because he had been unable to sleep for almost a
month. He claims that due to lack of sleep, his mind went totally
blank, and didn’t know what he was doing when the killing took
place.
ISSUE: WON Javier can be granted the mitigating circumstance
of illness?
RULING: NO. The accused did not present any medical findings
regarding his mental condition at the time of killing. It is clear
that the accused knows what we was doing as he was able to
recall all the events which led to the death of his wife.
32
10 Analogous circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(10)

33
Canta v People
FACTS: The accused, Exuperancio Canta had taken a cow without
the permission of its caretaker Gardenio Agapay. Canta is alleging
that the cow was his to begin with. However, the real owner of the
cow, Narciso Gabriel presented documents to prove that the cow
was indeed his. Canta also presented evidence to prove that the
cow was his. However, it was discovered that the documents
presented by Canta were fraudulent as they were antedated.
ISSUE: WON Canta be granted the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender?
RULING: YES. The accused voluntarily took the cow to the
municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in the
custody of the authorities, and thus saved them the trouble of
having to recover the cow from him. This act is analogous to that
of a voluntary surrender. 34
Example:

1. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary

surrender.
2. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and
obfuscation.
3. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar
to a case of a person over 70 years of age (People v. Reantillo
and Ruiz, C.A. G.R. No. 301, July 27, 1938).

35
11 Privileged circumstances
REV. PEN. CODE, art. 13(2)

36
1. Under 18 years of age or over seventy [Art 13(2)]
2. Two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances [Art 64 (5)]
3. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of
exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 [Art 67]
4. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of age
[Art 68]
5. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance – when
majority conditions are present [Art 69]

37
Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to
particular crimes

1. Infanticide [Art 255]

2. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Her
Parents. [Art 258]
3. Slight Illegal Detention [Art 268]
4. Who are guilty of adultery [Art 333 par. 3]

38
Baxinela v People
FACTS: SPO2 Eduardp Baxinela shot the victim, Ruperto Lajo,
thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal wounds. The RTC found
the accused guilty of the crime of homicide. However, the
accused’s defense is that when he asked the deceased why he had
a handgun, Lajo did not answer, and suddenly drew on him
prompting Baxinela to pull out his gun, and fire upon Lajo.
ISSUE: WON privileged mitigating circumstance can be granted to
Baxinela?
RULING: YES. The defense of fulfillment of duty was incomplete for
the present case. Although he acted within his duty, Baxinela acted
with negligence when he shot the victim to apprehend him. Thus,
only the first requirement of the defense of duty was fulfilled. The
mitigating circumstance under Art. 69 is applicable. 39
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. — The following are
mitigating circumstances:

(2) That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over

seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with the provisions of article 80.

40
ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods.
— In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods,
whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties,
each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of articles
76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:

(5) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.

41
ARTICLE 67. Penalty to Be Imposed When Not All the Requisites of
Exemption of the Fourth Circumstance of Article 12 are Present.—
When all the conditions required in circumstance number 4 of article 12
of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have
been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods, if of a less grave felony.

42
ARTICLE 68. Penalty to Be Imposed Upon a Person Under Eighteen
Years of Age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years
and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraph next
to the last of article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not
exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he
acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but
always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for
the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
always in the proper period.
43
ARTICLE 69. Penalty to Be Imposed When the Crime Committed is Not
Wholly Excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable
by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the
same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases
mentioned in articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and
nature of the conditions of exemption

44
ARTICLE 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in
article 246 and for murder in article 248 shall be imposed upon any
person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.

If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the

child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the
penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods,
and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal
grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prisión mayor.

45
ARTICLE 258. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Her
Parents. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice
an abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should
do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor,
shall suffer the penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or
either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the
penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

46
ARTICLE 268. Slight Illegal Detention. — The penalty of prisión mayor
shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the
crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance
of any of the circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the
place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so locked up or
detained within three days from the commencement of the detention,
without having attained the purpose intended, and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be
prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.

47
ARTICLE 333. Who are guilty of adultery. - Adultery is committed by
any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not
her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her
knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being
abandoned without justification by the offended spouse, the
penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next
preceding paragraph shall be imposed.

48
Effects of the Attendance of Mitigating or Aggravating
Circumstances and of Habitual Delinquency.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the
last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión correccional in its
medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión mayor in its minimum
and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for
the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prisión mayor in its
maximum period to reclusión temporal in its minimum period.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the
offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a
period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes robo, hurto, estafa,
or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

49
Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties
ARTICLE 63. Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties. — In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.
Join Zoom Meeting
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
https://zoom.us/j/93286299856?pwd=ZHp5RC9XelUrc
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the
VJwclpHeStQdGw0Zz09
greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Meeting ID: 932 8629 9856
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Passcode: Crim1
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the
courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules,
according to the result of such compensation.

50
Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods
ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods. — In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of articles 76
and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset
those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present,
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose
a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of
the evil produced by the crime. 51
Rule in Cases in Which the Penalty is
Not Composed of Three Periods

ARTICLE 65. Rule in Cases in Which the Penalty is Not

Composed of Three Periods. — In cases in which the penalty
prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts
shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles,
dividing into three equal portions the time included in the
penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the
three portions.

52
“ REFERENCES: RPC, REYES BOOK

53