Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

MODULE 5

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 State and explain the circumstances

affecting criminal liability of a person.

LESSON 1

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

IMPUTABILITY – Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its
author or owner. It is implies that the act committed has been freely and conciously done and
may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.

RESPONSIBILITY – Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is

the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime.

IMPUTABILITY DISTINGUISHED FROM RESPONSIBILITY

Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the
person must take the consequences of such deed.

What is “guilt”?

GUILT is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

I. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1) Definition

Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance
with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both
criminal and civil liability.

2) Basis of justifying circumstances

The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening
sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.”

The following do not incur any liability;

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the eperson defending himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees, and those by consaguinity 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 provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in 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.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:

First. That the devil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful mans of preventing it.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The circumstances mentioned in Art..11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the
accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, prove the justifying circumstances claimed by him to
the satisfaction of the court.

Par. 1- SELF- DEFENSE

Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes sel-defense, it is incumbent
upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in defense of himself.

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the eperson defending himself.

RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the eone assaulted but
also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.

REASONS WHY PENAL LAW MAKESSELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL

Because it would be quite possible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon
citizens ( and even foreigners, of course) and offer protectionto the person unjustly attacked.

REQUISITES OF SELF DEFENSE

Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an

immediate kind.
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out of materialized or at
the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening
stance or posture.

PERILE TO ONE’S LIFE

1. Actual – that the danger must be presaent, that is, actually in existence.

2. Imminent – that the danger os on the point of happineng. It is not required that the attack
already begins,, for it may be too late.

PERILE OT ONE’S LIMB

The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his body, in which case
there is danger to his life; or with a less daedly weapon or any other weapon that can cause
minor or physical injuries only,, aimed at other parts of the body, in which case, there is danger
only to his limb.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETALIATION AND SELF DEFENSE

In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him. In sel-defense, the aggression was still existing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making defense.

REMENBER: When the killing of the deceased by the accused was after the attack made by
the deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking.

The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
Although the accused was unalwfully attacked, nevertheless, the aggressor was not the
deceased but another person. Consequently, this unlawful aggression cannot be considered in
this case as an element of self defense because, in order to constitute an element of self
defense, the unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly form the person who was
subsequnetlyattacked by the accused.

REASON FOR THE RULE

Where the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonist is at once assailment and assaulted,
and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incidents in the
fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the cimbatants.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

The rule now is “stand ground when in the right”

The ancient common law rule in homicide denominated “rtreat to the wall,” has now given
way to the new rule “stand ground when in the right.”

So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat
when his asailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR?

In the absnce of direct evidence to determine who provikedthe conflict, it has been held that
it shall be presumed that, in hte nature of the order of the things, the person who was deeply
offended by the insult was the one who believed he had the right to demand explanation of the
perpetrator of that insult, and the one who also struck the first blow when he was not satisfied
with the expalnation offered.

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS

1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity.

2. Defense of property - it can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled

with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

3. Defense of home -

THREAT TO INFLICT REAL INJURY AS UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not presdeded by an outward and material

aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because it is required that the act be offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.

GRESSION THAT IS EXPECTED

An aggression that isd expected is still real, provided it is imminent.

REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

The second requisite of defense presupposes the exixtence of unlawful aggression, whcih is
either imminent or actual. Hence, in stating the second requisite, two phrases are used, namely:
(1) “to prevent” and (2) “to repel.” When we are attacked, the danger to our life or limb is either
imminent or actual. In making a defense, we prevent the aggression that places us in actual
danger. A threat to inflict real injury places us in imminent danger. An actual physical assault
places us in actual danger.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circmstances. In emergencies

where the person or life of another is imperilled, human nature does not act upon processess of
formal reason in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation.

Necessity of the course of action taken

The necessity of the course of action taken depends on the existence of unlawful
aggression. If there was no unlawful aggression or, if there was, it has ceased exist, there would
be no necessity for any course of action to take as there is nothing to prevent or to repel.

2) Necessity of the means used

The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.

THE TEST OF REASONABLE OF THEIR MEANS USED

Whether or not the means empolyed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality
of the weapon used by the aggressor his physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault.

The first two requisites thus far explained are common to self dfense, defense of relative,
and defense of a stranger. These three kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the third
requisite.

THIRD REQIUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE

“Lack of sufficient provoacation on the part of the3 person of defending himself.”

REASON FOR THE THIRD REQUISITE OF SELF DEFENSE

When the person defending himself from the attack by the another gave sufficient
provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the
aggression.

Hence, to tbe entitled to the benefit of the justfying circumstance of self-defense, the one
defending himself must not have given cause for the aggrression by his unjust conduct or by
inciting or porvoking the assailant.

Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered present

When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself;
or
When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself; or
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION?

The must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression
and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.

Par.2 - DEFENSE RELATIVES

Anyone who acts in the defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in
the same degrees, and those by 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 provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.

Consanguinity

refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters within the second civil degree; uncle and
niece or aunt and nephew are within the thirds civil degree; and first cousins are within the
fourth civil degree.

Basis of justification

The justification of defense relatives by reason of which the defender is not criminally
liable, is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood
which impels men o rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them
by ties of blood.

Requisites of defense of relatives:

Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
In case the provocation was given by the person attacked the one making a defense had
no part therein.

The first two requisite are already explained in the discussion odf self –defense.

THIRD REQUISITE OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

The clause, “ in case the provoacation was given by the person attacked,” used in stating
the third requisite of defense of relatives, does not mean that the relative defended should give
provocation to the aggression. The clause merely states an event which may or may not take
place.

Reason for the rule: That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its
effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted by
some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a realtive.

Par.3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Anyone who acts in 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.

Requisites:

Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

Basis of defense of stranger

What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. Persons acting in defense of
others are in the same condition and upon the same plane as those who act in defense of
themselves. The ordinary man woulkd not stand idly by and seee his companion killed without
attempting to save his life.

Third requisite of defense of stranger

This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or

generous motive, when it puts down “revenge, resentment, or other evil motive” as illegitimate

Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:

That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

“DAMAGE TO ANOTHER”

This term coveres injury no persons and damage to property.

Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.

Requisites:

1. That he accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed by the necessary consequence of such
right or office.

DISTINGUISED FROM SELF-DEFENSE AND FROM CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS ACT

Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is different from self- defense,
because thaty are based on different principle

Lawful exercise of right or office (OF RIGHT)

Under the civil code (Art. 429), the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose , he may use
such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

Lawful exercise of right or office (OF OFFICE)

The executioner of the Bilibid Prison cannot be held liable for murder for the execution
performed by him because he was merely acting in the lawful exercise of his office.

Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

Requisites:

1. That an order has been issued by a superior.

2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

II. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Definition

Exempting circumstances (non- imputability) are those grounds for exemtion from
punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any the condtions which make
the act vluntary or negligent.

2. Basis

The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,

freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

CIRCUMTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over 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 article 80 of this Code.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear an equal or greater
injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause.

In exempting circumtances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises.

One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumtances commits a crime, although
by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of
the act, no criminal liability arise.

BURDEN OF PROOF
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

Any of the circumtances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter of defense and the same must
be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

Par. 1-- An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval.

IMBECILITY DISTINGUISHED FROM INSANITY

The imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if
it can shown that he acted during a lucid interval.

During lucid inteval, the insane acts with intelligence.

An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable
to that of children between two and seven years of age.

To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be

a total deprivation of the freedom of the will.

Insanity- exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that
is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment, because there is a
complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the
will.

PROCEDURE WHEN THE IMBECILE OR THE INSANE COMMITTED A FELONY

The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission
of the court.

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW INSANITY?

The defense must prove that the caused was insane at the time of the commission of the
crime, because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.

 Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the prosecution may
proceed upon the presumption that the accused was sane and responsible when
the act was committed.
 The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of proof of insanity
is on the defense.

Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distinguished from insanity at the
time of the trial.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

When a person wan insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt
from criminal liability.

When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane
at the time of the trial, he is liable criminally.

EVIDENCE OF INSANITY

It must refer to the time proceeding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of
its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the
accused cannot be acquitted.

WHEN DEFENSE OF INSANITY IS NOT CREDIBLE

1. The defense of insanity is incredible.

2. He is not insane
3. The presumption of sanity has not been overcome.
4. The accused was not legally insane when he killed the hapless and helpless victim.
5. When he committed the dastardly felonies.

DEMENTIA PRAECOX is covered by the term insanity

When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox,

homicidal attack is common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or
that his proprty is baeing taken.

KLEPTOMANIA

If the accused appaers to have been suffering from kleptomania when he committed
the crime of theft.

The case of a person suffreiing from kleptomania must be investigated by competent

alienist or psychiatrist to determine whether the impulse to steal is irresistible or not.

EPILEPSY may be covered by the term insanity

Is a chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occuring at intervals, attended by

convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.

FEEBLEMINDEDNESS is not imbecility

In the case of people vs. Formigones, supra,it was held that feeblemindedness is not
exempting, because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane
cannot distinguish right from wrong.

OTHER CASES OF LACK OF INTELLIGENCE

 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

1. Committing a crime while in a dream

a. Somnambulism or sleepwalking.
b. Hypnotism
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 1.

The exempting circumtances if insanity or imbecility is based on the complete absence

of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.

Par. 2 – A person under nine years of age.

Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age

Konwn as “ Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” raise the age of absolute
irresponsibility drom nine (9) to fifteen (15) yearsof age.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 2.

The exempting circumtances of minority is based also on the complete absence of

intelligence.

Par. 3. – A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceed against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of his Code

PARAGRAPH 3, ARTICLE 12 RPC IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9344

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility – A children 15 years age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.

Chrildren above 15 but below 18 years of age who acted without discernment exempt forom
criminal liability

Minor under 18 but above 15 must acted with discernment to incur criminal liability. It is
presumed however that he/she acted without discernment because of the phrase “unless
he/she has acted with discernment” which indicate an exemption.

PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILTY

 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

1) The age of absolute irresponsibility – 9 years and below (infancy)

2) The age of conditional responsibility – between 9 and 15 years.
3) The age of full responsibility – 18 or over (adolescence) to 70 ( maturity).
4) The age of mitigated responsibility- over 9 and under 15, offender acting with
discernment; 15 or over but less than 18; over 70 years of age.

Meaning of DISCERNMENT

That constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity
to understand the difference between right and wrong,and such capacity may be known and
should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumtances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very compartment and
behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after
and even during the trial.

DISCERMENT AND INTENT DISTINGUISHED

“INTENT” refers to the desired act of the person while “DISCERNMENT” relates to the moral
significance that a person ascribes to the said act.

Discernment may be shown by:

1. Manner of committing a crime 2. Conduct of offender

FACTS FROM WHICH AGE IS PRESUMED MUST BE STATED FORTHE RECORD

The officer or court called upon to make a finding as to the aged of the accused should
state in the record, not merely a general statement of the personal appearance of the
accused, but the particular fact or facts concerning personal appearancewhich lead such
officer or court to believe that his age was stated by said officer or court.

Basis of paragraph 3.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 of Art.12 is based also on the complete

absence of interlligence.

Par.4 – Any person who,while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

ELEMENTS:
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

1) A person is performing a lawful act;

2) With due care;
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4) Without fault or intention of causing it.

FORTUITOUS EVENT – an event happening by chance or accident. It is an accurence or

failure to occur which is, or is assumed by the parties to be adversely affected by the happening
of such event.

ACCIDENT – An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although
it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly forseeable
consequences.

Basis of paragraph 4.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 is based on lack of negligence

and intent. Under this circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony or a
culpable felony.

Par. 5 – Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irrisistable force.

This exempting circumstance presuppoes that a person is compelled by means of force

or violence to commit a crime.

ELEMENTS

1) That the compulsion is by means of physical force

2) That the physical force must be irresistible
3) That the physical force must come from a third person.

Basis of paragraph 5.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 12 is based on the complete

absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.

NATURE OF FORCE REQUIRED

The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only
without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimadition must be present, imminent
and impending and such a nature as t induce a well-grounded apprehension of death of death
or serious bodily harmif the act is not done.

Par. 6. – Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

This exempting circumstance also presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by
another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence.

ELEMENTS:

1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater that or at least equal to, that
which he is required to commit.
2) That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.

INTIMIDATION – to make fearful or to put into fear.

GENERAL RULE – actual fear is not necessary, it can be seen from conduct, cords or
circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear.

THREAT – a ddemand by a party to another to take an action or refrain from taking or

continuing an action.

NATURE OF DURESS AS A VALID DEFENSE

Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for
one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.

DURESS – Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that a person to perform an act
that he or she odinarily would not perform.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN IRRESISTABLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

In irresistable force (par.5), the offender uses violence or physical force to compel
another person to commit a crime; n uncontrollable fear (par.6), the offender employs
intimidation r threat in compelling another to commit a crime.

Basis of paragraph 6.

The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Art.12 is aslo based on the complete

absence of freedom.

“actus me invito factus non est meus actus.” (“An Act done by me against my will is not
my act.”)

Par 7. – any personn who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

ELEMENTS:

1) That an act is required by law to be done;

2) That a person fails to perform such act;
3) That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 7.

The circumtance in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 exempt the acused from criminal liability,
because he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the law,
that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing
unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in
itself both just and lawful.
2) In exempting circumstance, there is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified, but
the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability, except in pars.4 and 7 (causing an
injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act required by law when prevented by
some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art.12.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

In addition to the justifying circumstances (Art.11) and the exempting circumstances (Art.
12), there are other absolutory causes in the following articles, to wit:

Art. 6 – The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of
a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution.

Art. 20 – Accessories who ae exempt from criminal liability.- 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 with the
provisions of paragraph 1 ogf the next prceeding article.

Art. 124, last paragraph. – The commission of the crime, or violent insanity or any other
ailment requiring the compulsary confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered
legal grounds for the detention of any person.

Art. 247, pars.1 and 2 – Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. – Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

act or imediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
penalty of destierro.

Art. 280, par.3. – The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling) shall not be
applicable to any person who sdhall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be
applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses,
while the same are open.

Art. 332. – Persons exempt from criminal liability. – No criminal, but only civil, liability
shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or lamicious mischief committed
or caused mutually by the followingpersons:

1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;

2) The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Art. 344. Par. 4. – In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to
the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after yhe fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

1. INSTIGATION is an absolutory cause

Basis of exemptiom from criminal liability

A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice (instigation) by
directing the acquittak of the accused.

2. ENTRAPMENT is not an absolutory cause.

ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION DISTINGUISED

There is a wide dirrence between entrapment and instigation, for while in the latter case
the instigator parctically induces the would – be accused into the commission of the offense and
himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment, ways and means are resortes to for the
puropose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the excution of his criminal plan.
Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. But when there is
instigation, the accused must be acquired.

Instigation must be made by public offices or private detectives. A criminal act may not
be punishable if the accused was induced to commit it by active cooperation and instigation on
the part of public detectives.

COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES

1) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and
the elements proved do not constitute any crime.
 Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

2) The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances.
3) The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances.
4) The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:

a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6) and no crime under

another provision of the Code or other penal law is committed.
b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or
property. (Art.7)
c. The accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art.20)
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention. (Art. 124)
e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)
f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a
relative. (Art. 332)
g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who
surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person. (Art.247)
h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is
rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
i. Instigation
5). Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.

6) Prescription of crimes. (Art.89)

7) Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against
chastity. (Art.344)