LESSON 12: CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY - 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.

The basis is diminution of either

freedom of action, intelligence, or
intent or on the lesser perversity of the
offender.

Likewise, mitigating circumstances

show lesser perversity of the offender
and are considered to lower the
penalty imposable generally to the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by
law.

Mitigating circumstances may be ordinary or privileged.

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances Privileged Mitigating Circumstances

Subsections 2 - 10 of Article 13 RPC Subsection 1 of Art. 13 of RPC, Articles 64,

68 and 69 of the RPC

Can be offset by aggravating Can never be offset by any

circumstances aggravating circumstance.

Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if

Privileged mitigating circumstances
not offset, will operate to reduce the
operate to reduce the penalty by one
penalty to the minimum period,
to two degrees, depending upon what
provided the penalty is a
the law provides.
divisible one.

The following are the mitigating circumstances:

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance

This applies when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from
criminal liability are not attendant, provided that the majority of the requisites are present.
a. In case of incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of
strangers - unlawful aggression is an
indispensable requirement. When
two of the three requisites
mentioned therein are present (i.e.
unlawful aggression and any one of
the other two), the case should be
considered as privileged mitigating
circumstance.

Example:

The deceased was about to

set on fire the house of the
accused, where she was sleeping
together with her two children. They grappled and the accused boloed to
death the deceased. There was unlawful aggression consisting in trying to set
on fire the house of the accused. There was the element of danger to the
occupants of the house. But having already driven the aggressor out of the
house, who was prostrate on the ground, the accused should not have
persisted in wounding her no less than fourteen times. There is, therefore,
absence of one circumstance to justify the act—reasonable necessity of
killing the aggressor. The accused was entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense. Here, the accused acted in defense
of her person, her home, and her children. (U.S. vs. Rivera, 41 Phil.472,
473-474) (Reyes, 2008)

b. In case of incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or

injury - if any of the last two requisites is absent (i.e. injury be feared greater
than that to avoid it or there are no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it)

Example:

While Anton was driving a car, he saw Karl crisscrossing the street
apparently drunk. In order to avoid Karl,Anton swerves to the left, hitting
Franco and Bernard, bystanders, killing both of them. Not all the requisites to
 justify the act were present because the harm done to avoid greater injury
was greater.

c. For other justifying circumstances other than those mentioned above or

incomplete exempting circumstance, if less than a 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 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.

2. The offender is under 18 or over 70 years old.

Under this mitigating

circumstance, the covered offenders
are those over 15 but under 18 years of
age who acted with discernment and
those over 70 years of age. It is the age
of the accused at the time of the
commission of the crime which should
be determined. His age at the time of
the trial is immaterial.

Legal effects of various ages of offender:

AGE BRACKET
EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

15 and under
Exempting circumstance

Exempting circumstance, provided he

Over 15 under 18, acted without discernment. Mitigating
circumstance, provided he acted with
discernment

18 or over Full criminal responsibility

 Mitigating circumstance; no imposition of
Over 70 death penalty; execution of death
sentence if already imposed is suspended
and commuted.

3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (praeter inentionem)

The basis of this mitigating circumstance is diminution of intent. Can be taken into
account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion
between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.

Intention may be ascertained by

considering:
a. The weapon used;
b. The injury inflicted;
c. The manner it is inflicted; and
d. The part of the body injured.

Rule on praeter intentionem may not be

applicable in the following instances:
1. Not applicable to felonies by
negligence
2. Not appreciated in murder qualified by treachery
3. Not appreciated in cases where there is no material harm done
4. Not available as a defense in violation of Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049)
5. Cannot be appreciated in abberatio ictus and error in personae because in
these cases, there is intent to commit a felony

Example:

The husband who was quarreling with his wife punched her in the abdomen, causing the
rupture of her hypertrophied spleen, from which she died.

4. Sufficient threat or provocation

The basis of this mitigating circumstance is diminution of intelligence and intent

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

Sufficient means adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong and must

accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.

It is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying; the

provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act and should
immediately precede the act.

Elements:

a. Provocation must be sufficient.

b. It must originate from the offended party.
c. It must be immediate to the act.
i. Immediate means that there is no interval of time between the
provocation and the commission of the crime.

Example:

The victim's act of kicking the accused on the chest prior to the stabbing does
not constitute unlawful aggression for purposes of self-defense, but the act may be
considered as sufficient provocation on the victim's part, a mitigating circumstance that
may be considered in favor of the accused. (People vs. Macariola, No. L-40757, Jan. 24,
1983, 120 SCRA 92, 102)

5. Vindication of a grave offense

The basis of this mitigating circumstance is loss of reasoning and

self‐control, thereby, diminishing the exercise of his will power.

Elements:

a. 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.
b. Felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
 The grave offense must be the proximate cause or proximate to
the act of the offender.

Factors that determine the gravity of offense of vindication:

a. Social standing of the person
b. Place
c. Time when the insult was made.

SUFFICIENT THREAT OR VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

PROVOCATION

The grave offense may be committed

It is made directly only to the person
committing the felony. also against the offender’s relatives
mentioned in the law.

The offended party must have done a

The cause that brought about the
provocation need not be a grave grave offense against the offender or his
relatives mentioned in the law.
offense.

The vindication of the grave offense may

It is necessary that the provocation or be proximate which admits of interval of
threat immediately preceded the act. time between the grave offense
There must be no interval of time committed by the offended party and
between the provocation and the the commission of the crime
commission of the crime. of the accused.

Example:

During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased for some roast pig. In
the presence of many guests, the deceased insulted the old man, saying: “There is no more.
Come here and I will make roast of you.” A little later, while the deceased was squatting down,
the old man came up behind him and struck him on the head with an ax.
Held: While it may be a mere trifle to an average person, it evidently was a serious matter
to an old man, to be made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The accused
was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense. (Reyes,
2008)
 6. Passion or obfuscation

The basis of this mitigating circumstance is the loss of reasoning and self‐control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power.

Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feelings which produce excitement so

powerful as to overcome reason and self‐control. It must come from prior unjust or improper
acts. The passion and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.

Elements:

1. That there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a

condition of mind.
2. That the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from
the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which
the perpetrator might recover his natural equanimity.
3. The act of causing such obfuscation was committed by the victim himself

PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION

It is produced by an impulse The provocation comes

which may cause provocation from the injured party

The offense need not be

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

PASSION OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance

 It cannot give rise to irresistible
force because passion or It requires physical force.

obfuscation has no physical force.

The passion or obfuscation is in

It must come from a third
the offender himself
person.

It must arise from lawful sentiments.

It is unlawful.

Example:

The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation

where he hit the deceased upon seeing the latter box his 4-year-old son. The actuation
of the accused arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of a
beleaguered son, regardless of whether the latter be right or wrong. (People vs. Castro,
No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982, 117 SCRA 1014, 1020)

7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt

The basis of this mitigating circumstance is the lesser perversity of the offender.

Elements for voluntary surrender:

1. Offender had not been

actually arrested.
2. Surrender was made to a
person in authority or the
latter's agent.
a. Person in authority
is a person who by
direct provision of
law, or by
election, or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
3. Surrender must be unconditional.
4. Surrender was voluntary.
 a. It is voluntary when it is spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit
himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent.

Example:

The accused, after plunging a bolo into the victim's chest, ran toward the
municipal building. Upon seeing a patrolman, he immediately threw away his bolo,
raised his two hands, offered no resistance and said to the patrolman"here is my bolo, I
stabbed the victim." There was intent or desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities.
(People vs. Tenorio, No. L-15478, March 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 700,703)

Elements for confession of guilt:

1. Offender voluntarily confessed his guilt.

a. It must be made on the very first opportunity.
2. It was made in open court (that is before the competent court that is to try the
case).
3. It was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
4. The confession of guilt was to the offense charged in the information

If both plea of guilt and voluntary surrender are present, they are considered as
two independent mitigating circumstances.

Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is
immaterial and irrelevant.

8. Physical defect

The basis of this mitigating is the diminution of the element of voluntariness.

Physical defect is when a person's physical condition, such as being deaf

and dumb, blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer, whereby his means of action, defense
or communication with others are restricted or limited.
The physical defect that a person may have must have
a relation to the commission of the crime.
 The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the
commission of the crime. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. It will only do
so if it has some relation to the crime committed. This circumstance must also have a
bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was
committed.

9. Illness of the offender

Requisites:
a. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his
will-power.
b. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of
his acts.

Kleptomania, feeblemindedness, mistaken belief that killing witches was for

public good and illness of nerves or moral faculty may be considered as mitigating
circumstances.

Illness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of the consciousness
of his acts or he will be exempt from criminal liability. For example, schizophrenia is
mitigating because it diminishes but not deprive the accused of the consciousness
of his act.

10. Similar and analogous circumstances

Some examples of similar and analogous cases:

a. The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he
buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to
voluntary surrender.
b. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered
as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. (People v. Macbul, 74 Phil. 436)
Unless he became impoverished because of his own way of living his life, i.e. he
had so many vices.
c. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
d. Over 60 years of age with failing sight, similar to over 70 years of age.
e. Outraged feeling of unpaid creditor, as akin to vindication or obfuscation.
f. Testifying for the prosecution without being discharged from the information,
as being like a plea of guilty
g. Voluntary restitution of stolen property, similar to voluntary
surrender.
h. Mass psychology and appeal to esprit de corps is similar to passion or
obfuscation.
i. Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken for ransom is
analogous to vindication of grave offense
j. The act of the accused leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried
the instruments he used to commit the crime is similar to voluntary surrender.