Under Art.

4(1), criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committed By any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. This
provision is otherwise known as the proximate cause doctrine. Its elements are:
1. That the intended act is a felonious act;
2. That the resulting act is a felony; and
3. The resulting felony is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act of the
offender.
When you say proximate cause, it is the cause that sets into motion all other causes and which
unbroken by an efficient intervening cause produces the felony without which the felony would
not have resulted. An efficient intervening cause is an active force which is a distinct act or fact
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Under Art. 4(1), there are three circumstances wherein the offender becomes criminally liable for
the resulting felony although different from that which he intended. We have the so-called: (a)
aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow; (b) error in personae or mistake in the identity; and (c)
praeter intentionem when the consequence went beyond the intention.
Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his
intended victim but because of poor aim, the blow landed on another person. In this case, both the
intended victim and actual victim are there at the scene of the crime. However, because of lack of
precision on the part of the said offender, the blow intended for the intended victim was done on
the actual victim. It was the actual victim who suffered the blow.
It results to two crimes: (a) the crime against the intended victim; and (b) the crime against the
actual victim. If these two crimes happen to be grave or less grave felonies, Art. 48 of the Revised
Penal Code or complexity of crimes shall be applied. Therefore, only 1 Information shall only be
filed in court. But, if one of the resulting felonies happens to be a light felony, it cannot be complex.
Therefore, two cases shall be filed in court.
In the cases of People vs. Flora and People vs. Adriano, where there was an attempted murder that
resulted in someone else getting killed, the Supreme Court held that the treachery that attended the
attempted murder was also present in so far as the killings of the actual victims were concerned.
Therefore, the accused should be prosecuted for murder, in so far as the actual victim is concerned.
If the actual victim survived the killing attempt, there is only serious physical injuries since the
intent to kill the actual victim is not present in that instance.
The second situation under Art. 4(1) is error in personae or mistake in the identity. It is a situation
wherein the offender directed the blow at a person whom he thought was the intended victim but
the intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. He has mistaken the actual victim to the
intended victim.
In effect, if the complexity of crimes under Art. 48 will be applied in the mistake in the blow, it
will be beneficial to the accused. He will not be prosecuted for 2 crimes, instead, he will be
prosecuted only for 1 crime. Only 1 Information shall be filed in court, although, if found guilty,
the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period shall be the one imposed.
Under Art. 49, if the intended felony is different from the resulting felony in case of mistake in the
identity, the offender shall be prosecuted for the said resulting felony. However, the penalty to be
imposed should be the lesser of the 2 penalties between the intended felony and the felony actually
committed. Therefore, in this case, mistake in the identity is a mitigating circumstance. It lowers
the imposable penalty since the lesser of the 2 penalties shall be imposed in its maximum period.
However, if the intended felony is just the same as the felony actually committed, there is no
difference, there is no variance between the intended felony and the felony actually committed,
then, the same penalty shall be imposed upon the offender. Hence, mistake in the identity has no
effect on the criminal liability of the offender. It will no longer mitigate or extenuate the penalty
to be imposed.
The third situation under Art. 4(1) is known as Praeter Intentionem when the consequence went
beyond the intention. It is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at his intended victim
and the intended victim actually received the blow, however, the injurious result is far greater than
what could have been anticipated from the means employed by the offender.
In order for praeter intentionem to lie, the following elements must be present:
1. That a felony has been committed;
2. That there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the offender and the resulting
felony and out of the means employed, the resulting felony could not have been foreseen.
In the case of People v. Noel Sales, the father was charged with parricide. After repeatedly hitting
his son with a piece of wood while the body of the son was tied to a tree, the son died. He said that
he has no intention to kill the son, his intention was only to discipline the son. The Supreme Court
held that he was liable for parricide no matter how much he said that he has no intention to kill his
son. The fact that the child died, intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent which requires no
proof.
The RTC, in this case, gave him the benefit of praeter intentionem. However, according to the
Supreme Court, the RTC was erroneous in considering praeter intentionem in favor of Noel Salas.
Praeter intentionem would not lie because there was no notable disparity between the acts done by
the father and the resulting felony. The acts done by the father, in repeatedly hitting the son with
a piece of wood while the body of the son was tied to a tree, are acts that would produce, and
indeed it produced, the death of the son. Hence, the Supreme Court said, praeter intentionem
cannot be considered in favor the said father so as to mitigate his criminal liability.
Under Art. 4(2), aka the impossible crime doctrine, criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person performing an act which would have been a crime against persons or property where it not
for its inherent impossibility or the employment of ineffectual inadequate means.
An impossible crime is one wherein the act done would have resulted to a crime against persons
or property but it is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. Therefore, an impossible crime is not, in reality,
a crime. The acts done by the offender did not ripen into a crime, a crime was not produced because
of its inherent impossibility. Nevertheless, even though objectively no crime was committed, the
offender will be charged for an impossible crime because of the offender's criminal tendency.
Therefore, the criminal charge filed in court is an impossible crime.
The elements of an impossible crime are:
1. The act done would have amounted to a crime against persons or property;
2. The act was done with evil intent;
3. The act was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or the means employed are
ineffectual or inadequate; and
4. The act does not fall under any other provision of the RPC.
Based on the first element, an impossible crime would only apply if the acts did by the offender,
had it been consummated, would have amounted to a crime against person (Title VIII, Book II of
the RPC) or property (Title X, Book II of the RPC). An impossible crime would not apply to any
other crime.
Under the second element, it is necessary that there is evil intent. Under the third element, the act
was not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility. When you say inherent impossibility,
under any and all circumstances, the act would not ripen into a crime. In the case of Intod v. CA,
the Supreme Court discussed the kinds of inherent impossibility. These are:
1. Legal Impossibility - all the intended acts, even if accomplished, would not amount to a crime
2. Physical or Factual Impossibility – extraneous circumstances are unknown to the offender,
beyond the control of the offender, which prevented the consummation of the crime.
Under the last element, the conviction of an impossible crime must be one of last resort, since if
the resulting crime is punished by any provision of the RPC, that provision will prevail and there
is no impossible crime.
There is no impossible crime of kidnapping for ransom, since the same is a crime against liberty,
not one against persons or property. Under this rule, there is also no impossible crime of adultery
even if the offender is not a woman by birth since adultery is a crime against chastity.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as
those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
TWO PHASES IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
1. Subjective Phase – this is the portion in the commission of the act wherein the offender
commences the commission of the crime up to the time that he offender still has control over his
acts. The offender can either proceed with the commission of the crime or desist. If he desisted, he
does not incur criminal liability.
2. Objective Phase – the moment the offender loses control over his acts, he is already in the
objective phase of committing a felony.
THREE STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY
A. Attempted Stage
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Elements of an attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts;
2. He was not able to perform all the acts of execution; and
3. He was not able to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
In the first element, it is necessary that the attempted felony charged is that which is directly
connected to the overt act although the offender may have a different crime in mind.
The second element requires that he be not able to consummate the crime. What is the reason? The
third element. By reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Because if the reason is the offender’s spontaneous desistance, then he is not liable of any crime.
Desistance would only negate a person’s criminal liability if the felony were in the attempted stage.
The moment the felony is already in the frustrated or consummated stage, no amount of desistance
would negate the criminal liability.
Attempted Felony Impossible Crime
The evil intent is possible of accomplishment The evil intent is not possible of
accomplishment
The crime was not accomplished by reason of The crime was not accomplished because of
some cause or accident other than the its inherent impossibility
offender’s own spontaneous desistance

B. Frustrated Stage
A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce
the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Elements of a frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony; and
2. The felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Frustrated Felony Attempted Felony
The offender already performed all the acts of The offender has not performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony execution, he only commences the
commission of the crime
The felony was not produced by reason of The felony was not produced by reason of
causes independent of the will of the some cause or accident other than the
perpetrator offender’s own spontaneous desistance
The offender is already in the objective phase. The offender is only in the subjective phase.
He has no more control over his acts He still has control over his actions

C. Consummated Stage
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment
are present. The moment all the elements of the felony under Book II are present, it is already
consummated. If any of the elements is absent, it can either be attempted, frustrated or different
felony.
There are certain felonies which do not admit of frustrated stage. One of them is theft, as held by
the SC in the case of Valenzuela. There is no such crime as frustrated theft. SC said based on the
definition of theft under Art 308 in relation to 309, it is committed when the offender takes the
personal property of another with intent to gain without the consent of the owner without violence
against or intimidation of persons or use of force upon things.
Unlawful taking is the only act necessary to consummate theft. Therefore, the moment unlawful
taking is complete, theft is already consummated. Unlawful taking is deemed complete the moment
the offender has possession of the personal property of another, even if the offender has not yet
disposed of the property (See case of People vs. Valenzuela).
Another crime which does not admit of frustrated stage is rape. It is settled in People v. Pareja that
there is no such crime as frustrated rape. The slightest penile penetration of a woman’s vagina
would already consummate the crime of rape. In order to consummate rape, it is necessary that
there is penetration. However, the penetration required does not need to be complete. The slightest
penetration consummates rape. There is penetration the moment the penis touched the lips or labia
of the pudendum of a woman’s genitalia. So, there is no frustrated rape.
In People v. Pareja, the SC distinguished attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness. If based on
the facts and circumstances, there was intent to lie or have carnal knowledge, to penetrate, with
the victim, it is attempted rape. But if the evidence shows that there was no such intent, it is only
acts of lasciviousness.
If a crime admits of the stages of consummated, frustrated or attempted, or even consummated and
attempted only, these are Material Crimes. But if the crimes do not admit of the stages, it is
considered Formal Crimes. Formal crimes are punished only in the consummated stage. These are
crimes based on result. Hence, they have no attempted and frustrated stage. Example of formal
crimes include light serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, serious physical
injuries, and false testimony.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable only when they have
been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony
are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit
a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
General rule: As a rule, conspiracy, and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable acts. They
are mere preparatory acts. In Article 6, to commit a crime, there must at least be the commencement
of an overt act to amount at least an attempted felony. Here, there is no overt act yet. There is only
a conspiracy, a proposal.
Exception: When the law specially provides a penalty for merely conspiring or proposing to
commit a felony, they become crimes by themselves.
Q: What are the 2 concepts of conspiracy?
A:
1. Conspiracy as a crime by itself – when the law provides a penalty for merely conspiring.
2. Conspiracy only as a means of committing the crime – when the law does not provide a penalty
for merely conspiring. Conspiracy is only used as a means in order to consummate the crime.
Q: What are the 2 kinds of conspiracy as a means to commit the crime?
A:
1. Direct or Express conspiracy - when the conspirators met, planned, and agreed to commit a
crime. It is a conspiracy based on a preconceived plan. Since there was planning, all perpetrators
who would be present at the scene of the crime could be held criminally liable as conspirators for
the said crime agreed upon.
Even if he did not actively participate in the commission of the crime. Since he was part of the
agreement or preconceived plan, his mere presence at the scene of the crime, his mere exercise of
moral ascendancy at the scene of the crime will make him a conspirator. Therefore, in case of
direct or express conspiracy, the offender can be held criminally liable either by direct or indirect
participation in the commission of the crime because he was part of the agreement.
But, although he was a part of the agreement, if he failed to appear at the scene of the crime, he
cannot be held criminally liable EXCEPT when he is the principal by induction or inducement.
Reason is, although he was part of the agreement, he did not appear at the scene of the crime.
Therefore, he desisted in the actual execution of the crime. Hence, he cannot be held criminally
liable as a conspirator.
2. Implied or inferred conspiracy – A conspiracy deduced from the mode and manner of
committing the crime. The conspirators acted simultaneously in a synchronized and coordinated
manner towards a common criminal objective/design. The conspirators did not meet nor plan. The
conspirators did not agree. There was no preconceived plan. The said conspiracy happened
impliedly, at the spur of the moment, based on the turn of events, based on particular acts they
performed.
It is one deduced from the mode and manner of committing the crime. Mere presence at the scene
of the crime, mere acquiescence, or approval to the commission of the crime will not make one a
conspirator absent an active participation in the commission of the crime.
The moment conspiracy is established, whether it is direct/express conspiracy or implied/inferred
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. It simply means that the moment conspiracy is
established, all perpetrators are punished to the same extent, regardless of the quantity and quality
of their participation in the commission of the crime. Therefore, you do not ask who inflicted the
fatal blow or the mortal attack, or who performed a minor act. That is irrelevant.
However, the moment conspiracy is not established, each perpetrator are punished only to the
extent of their participation on the commission of the crime as held in the case of People vs.
Bokingco, People vs. Castillo, GMA vs People. In these cases, the offenders are punished to the
extent only of their participation because conspiracy was not proven.
Q: What are the 2 kinds of multiple conspiracy?
A:
1. Wheel or circle conspiracy - When a person or group of persons known as a hub, deals
individually with another person or group of persons known as the spokes.
2. Chain conspiracy – a conspiracy generally present in regular business transactions that applies
also in case of transactions involving contrabands. Here, there is that continuous communication
and transaction between the manufacturer and the wholesaler, the wholesaler and the retailer, and
the retailer and the consumer.
For example, A and his cohorts manufacture shabu. B and his cohorts would buy it in wholesale.
C and his cohorts would buy it from B and would repack it to sell it for retail to the consumers.
There was this consistent and continuous action between the manufacturer and the wholesaler, the
wholesaler and the retailer, and the retailer and the consumer.
Conspiracy can be applied in this case because there is an express provision under Section 26 of
RA 9165 which provides that they can be punished for conspiracy. Under section 26 of RA 9165,
the law expressly provides that there is the attempted stage as well as the conspiracy in case of
violation of Section 5 (transporting dangerous drugs). Therefore, since it is the SPL itself that
provides for the said conspiracy, it can be considered against the accused.
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which
the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period
are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor
or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos or both; is provided. Note: Amended Art. 26 of the RPC
"Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single or
as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds One million two
hundred thousand (₱1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed One million two
hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but is not less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and a
light penalty, if it be less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. - Offenses which are or in the future
may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
Q: What are the circumstances that affect the criminal liability of an offender?
A:
1. Justifying circumstances
2. Exempting circumstances
3. Mitigating circumstances
4. Aggravating circumstances
Q: What are justifying circumstances?
A: Those circumstances, which, if present or attendant in the commission of a felony, the offender
is said to have acted within the bounds of the law. The offender is said to not have transgressed
the law. Therefore, there is no crime committed. There is no criminal liability, and as a rule, there
is also no civil liability because there is no crime committed.
If an offender is charged in court and he raised as a defense any of the justifying circumstances
under Article 11, that offender/accused is in effect admitting the acts or omissions alleged in the
information. However, he is avoiding criminal responsibility by saying that his act is justified.
Therefore, the moment the defense raised a justifying circumstance, the trial will be inverted. It is
always the prosecution who has the burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
However, the moment the accused says that his defense is any of those enumerated under Article
11, the law prima facie presumes that he already is liable. Therefore, the burden of evidence is
shifted on him to contradict the said presumption made by law. The burden of evidence is on him
to prove the elements of the justifying circumstance that he is raising.
If he failed to prove the elements of the justifying circumstance that he is raising, definitely it is a
conviction because in saying that his act is justified, the law presumes he already admitted the
commission of the crime.
Self defense includes defense of one’s life and limb, defense of one’s honor and chastity, defense
of one’s property coupled by an attack on the person trusted with the said property.
I. SELF DEFENSE
Self defense includes defense of one’s life and limb, defense of one’s honor and chastity, defense
of one’s property coupled by an attack on the person trusted with the said property.
ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE
1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
In several cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that in case of self defense, the primordial
element is unlawful aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression coming from the victim, there is no reason for the accused to defend himself.
Hence, it is necessary first and foremost that there is unlawful aggression. The unlawful aggression
must come from the victim himself, not from any other person.
Q: What are the elements of unlawful aggression?
A:
1. There must be a physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent.
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful.
Q: What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression?
A:
1. Physical/Material unlawful aggression - the attack is by means of physical force or by means of
a weapon;
2. Imminent unlawful aggression - the attack is impending or at the point of happening. If there is
an unlawful aggression coming from the victim, the said person defending himself must use a
means reasonable in order to repel the said unlawful aggression coming from the victim.
2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL
THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Q: What does “reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it” mean?
A: The said act done by the person defending himself must be reasonable or rational in order to
prevent the said unlawful aggression.
Q: What are the factors to be considered to determine whether the means employed is rationally
necessary?
A:
1. Nature and the number of the weapons used by the unlawful aggressor as against that of the
person defending himself.
2. Personal circumstances of the unlawful aggressor versus that of the person defending himself.
3. Place and location of the assault.
3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING
HIMSELF
Q: What is provocation?
A: refers to any improper or unjust act which is capable of inciting or exciting a person to commit
an unlawful act.
Q: When is it considered sufficient provocation?
A: when it is adequate to stir a person to commit a wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the
gravity of the act.
What the law requires based on the 3rd element of self defense, is that there must be no sufficient
provocation coming from the accused. There may be provocation. It is allowed. What is not
allowed is sufficient provocation coming from the said accused.
Q: What is the maxim behind self-defense?
A: Stand ground when in the right. It means that when the accused is where he should be, the law
does not require him to retreat when he saw his assailant fast approaching him. Otherwise, he runs
the risk of being stabbed at the back.
TRUE OR FALSE: Self defense applies only in case of consummated felony.
A: FALSE. Self-defense would apply the moment there is any unlawful aggression done by the
victim against the accused The moment the life and limb of the said accused was placed in actual
or imminent danger, whether it is consummated or not, he has to act based on the impulse of self-
preservation. Therefore, self-defense does not only lie in case of consummated felony. It applies
even in case of attempted and frustrated for as long as the life and limb of the person defending
himself was placed in actual and imminent danger.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no part
therein. Even if the relative, who was defended by the offender, was the one provoked the offended
party, as long as the relative making the defense is not a party to the provocation, there is still could
be a valid and legitimate defense of a relative.
It is necessary however, for defense of relative to lie, that those relatives mentioned must be the
one being defended.
• 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
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression;
3. The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
It is necessary under the third element that the only objective of the accused is to defend a stranger.
There was a noble or a disinterested motive or intent to help. He must not be guided by any evil
intent in helping the said stranger.
STATE OF NECESSITY
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present;
(1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
(2) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
(3) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
For as long as the mentioned requisites are present, he would be absolved of criminal liability BUT
NOT OF CIVIL LIABILITY.
The 4th justifying circumstance is an exception to the rule that in case of justifying circumstances,
there is no criminal and civil liability. Under the 4th justifying circumstance, in case of state of
necessity, there is no criminal liability, but there is civil liability.
Under Art. 101 of the RPC, the civil liability in case of state of necessity shall be adjudged against
the accused and all other persons who have been benefited by the said state of necessity. If there
are many persons who have been benefited by the said state of necessity, Art 101 states that the
court shall divide the civil liability proportionately.
PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY
Elements:
1. Offender acted in the due performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
2. The resulting felony is an unavoidable consequence of the due performance of his duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
It is necessary that the said offender was performing his duty, exercising his right, fulfilling his
duty.
Q: Does it mean that it can only apply to a public officer?
A: NO, even private individuals are included. This does not apply exclusively to public officers
and employees. For example, X, a private individual, saw a person in danger. It is his duty to help
that person. Otherwise, he can be charged with abandonment of persons in danger. Because of the
offender’s due performance of his duty, lawful exercise of a right, he caused an injury, a felony
resulted. If the said injury is the unavoidable consequence of the due performance of his duty, then
the said justifying circumstance would lie in favor of the offender.
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER
Elements:
1. An order has been issued by a superior
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
It is necessary that the offender has a superior, and the superior issued an order, and the said order
was for some lawful purpose and the means used by the subordinate to carry out the order must
also be lawful.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
It is another justifying circumstance, but it is found under RA 9262.
Battered Woman 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.
Under Section 26 of RA9262, victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense. The moment the accused was
found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome, it is as if she was acting in self-defense.
The woman does not incur any civil or criminal liability. Thus, it is akin to a justifying
circumstance. Even if there is no justifying circumstance, there is no unlawful aggression coming
from the victim because Sec. 26 states even if none of the elements of the justifying circumstance
of self-defense are present.