Twenty Five (25) Important Points on Circumstances

Affecting Criminal Liability

1. There are six (6) justifying circumstances enumerated in Article 11 of the

Revised Penal Code where the accused does not incur any criminal and civil
liability because his/her act is in accordance with law; he/she therefore does
not commit any crime at all. There is generally no civil liability, except in
avoidance of greater evil or injury where the person benefitted is the one
civilly liable [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 11 and 101].

The justifying circumstances in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code

include:

1. 1. Self-defense
2.
3. 2. Defense of relative
4.
5. 3. Defense of stranger
6.
7. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
8.
9. 5. Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office
10.
11. 6. Obedience to lawful order of a superior

2. The Battered Woman Syndrome (“BWS”) refers to a scientifically defined

pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse and victims-survivors
suffering from BWS do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. [Rep. Act No.
9262 (2004), sec. 3(c) and 26] It is thus similar to a justifying circumstance
as long as at least two cycles of violence, consisting of three phases, are duly
 established by the expert testimony of psychologists or psychiatrists. [Rep.
Act No. 9262 (2004), sec. 26, in relation to People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA
537 (2002)]

3. An indispensable requisite of self-defense, defense of relative and defense

of stranger is that the victim must have mounted an unlawful aggression
against the accused. Without such unlawful aggression, the accused cannot
invoke self-defense, defense of relative or defense of stranger as a justifying
circumstance. [People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018] There
could likewise be no incomplete self defense, defense of relative or defense
of stranger if there is no unlawful aggression.

4. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful

aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material
unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon,
an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to
cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere
threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive
and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot
or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful
aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as
pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered,
accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.
[People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018]

5. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a

duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, which have two requisites:
(a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right: and (b) that the injury
or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right or office. [People v. Belbes, 334 SCRA 161 (2000)]

6. There are seven (7) exempting circumstances enumerated in Article 12 of

the Revised Penal Code where a person who commits a crime is exempt
from criminal liability because of the absence of freedom of action,
intelligence or intent or lack of negligence. However, he incurs civil liability,
except in paragraphs 4 and 7, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

The exempting circumstances in Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code

include:
 1. 1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter acted
1. under a lucid interval
2.
3. 2. A person fifteen years or under
4.
5. 3. A person over fifteen and under eighteen years, unless he
1. acted with discernment
6.
7. 4. Accident
8.
9. 5. Compulsion of an irresistible force
10.
11. 6. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear
12.
13. 7. Prevented due to lawful or insuperable cause

7. Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal liability an

imbecile or an insane person unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval. An imbecile is exempt at all times, while an insane person is
exempt unless he acted during a lucid interval. An imbecile is a person
marked by mental deficiency while an insane person is one who has an
unsound mind or suffers from a mental disorder. [People v. Ambal, 100
SCRA 325 (1980)]

An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, is

one who must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom
of will at the time of committing the crime. He is one who, while advanced
in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between
two and seven years of age. [People v. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, 23 July
1997]

Insanity has been defined as "a manifestation in language or conduct of

disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or
disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and
characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory
or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition."
[People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 (1980), citing Section 1039, Revised
 Administrative Code]

8. A child fifteen (15) years and under is absolutely exempt from criminal
liability. A child over fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) years old
is also exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment.
[Rep. Act No. 9344 (2006), sec. 6] A minor is presumed to have acted
without discernment. [Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116 (2005)]

9. The 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 [People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580
(1939)] Discernment is more than the mere understanding between right and
wrong. Rather it means the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act. [People v. Navarro, 51 O.G. 4062 (1955)]

10. In absolutory causes, the person commits a crime but is absolved from
criminal liability by reason of public policy or sentiment. There is generally
civil liability. There are several absolutory causes which include:

a. The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the

commission of a felony before he could perform all acts of execution
[REV. PEN. CODE, art. 6(3)]
1.
b. Frustrated and attempted light felonies are not punishable, except in
crimes against persons and property [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 7]
2.
c. Accessories are not criminally liable in light felonies [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 16]
3.
d. Accessories who are relatives of the principal are exempt from
criminal liability [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 20]

e. Death or serious physical injuries and other physical injuries

inflicted under exceptional circumstances [REV. PEN. CODE, art.
247]

f. Absolutory causes in qualified trespass to dwelling [REV. PEN. CODE,

art. 280]
 g. Exempt persons in certain crimes against property, specifically
estafa, theft or malicious mischief [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 332]

h. Consent or pardon in certain crimes against chastity [REV. PEN.

CODE, art. 344]

i. Instigation [People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999]

11. Article 247 of the RPC does not define an offense. Destierro is imposed
more as a protection to the accused rather than as a punishment. [People v.
Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)] It is rather an absolutory cause which is
present "where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty imposed." [People v. Talisic, G.R. No.
97961, 5 September 1997]

12. The absolutory cause in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code applies
only to legally married persons and can be invoked by the innocent spouse
who surprises his or her spouse in sexual intercourse with another person
and kills or inflicts physical injuries on them in the act or immediately
thereafter. It is not applied if the spouse has promoted or facilitate the
prostitution or has otherwise consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
[Rep. Pen. Code, art. 247 and People v. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, 5
September 1997] This absolutory cause applies to parents with respect to
their daughters under eighteen years and their seducers, while the daughters
are living with their parents. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 247]

13. Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides for an absolutory cause
in the crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits
the responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from
criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. [Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No.
181409, 11 February 2010]

The relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of
the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse,
regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not. [Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No.
181409, 11 February 2010]
 Furthermore, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the simple
felonies mentioned therein and it does not apply where any of the crimes
mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft
through falsification or estafa through falsification. [Intestate Estate of
Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
February 2010]

14. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. It

is instigation that is a defense and is considered an absolutory cause. [People
v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999]

There are two tests in entrapment:

a. Subjective or origin of intent test, where the focus of the inquiry is

the accused’s predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state
of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government
agents

b. Objective test, where the court considers the nature of the police
activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is
focused on the inducements made by police agents, on police conduct,
not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime

15. Mitigating circumstances may either be ordinary or privileged. Ordinary

mitigating circumstances will lead to the imposition of the lower indivisible
penalty in case there are two indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code or of the penalty in its minimum period in case of a
divisible penalty under Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, if there is no
aggravating circumstance; while a privileged mitigating circumstance may
lead to the lowering of the penalty by a degree or two degrees. [REV. PEN.
CODE, art. 63, 64, 64(5), 68, and 69]

16. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances may be ordinary or

privileged mitigating circumstances. When majority of the requisites are
present, they are considered as privileged mitigating circumstances under
Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code which may lead to the reduction of the
penalty by one or two degrees; when majority of the requisites are not
present, they are considered as ordinary mitigating circumstances under
Article 13(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
17. Minority in Article 13(2) of the Revised Penal Code is an exempting
circumstance if the child is 15 years old or below or as a privileged
mitigating circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, which
will lead to a reduction of only one degree, if the child is over 15 but below
18 years old who acted with discernment.

18. When originally there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance, it will be considered as a privileged mitigating
circumstance which will lead to the imposition of the penalty next lower in
degree. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 64(5)] It does not apply if there was originally
an aggravating circumstance and offsetting was done leaving two or more
mitigating circumstances.

19. The list of mitigating circumstances in Article 13 of the Revised Penal

Code is not exclusive as there may be other mitigating circumstances which
are of a similar nature or analogous to those enumerated, while the list of
aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code are
exclusive.

20. The qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the

complaint or information, otherwise, these cannot be appreciated by the
court even if subsequently proved during the trial. [Rules of Court, Rule 110,
sec. 8 and 9 and Sombillon v. People, G.R. No. 175528, 30 September 2009]

21. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime

especially punishable by law or which are included by law in defining a
crime and prescribing the penalty therefor as well as those which are
inherent in the crime are not taken into account for the purpose of increasing
the penalty. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 62]

22. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral

attributes of the offender or from his private relations with the offended
party, or from any other personal cause shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of those as to whom such circumstances are attendant;
while circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act or in
the means employed to accomplish it shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 62]

23. Special aggravating circumstances may not be offset by ordinary

mitigating circumstances and mandate that the penalty be imposed always in
 its maximum period, including: (i) penalty for complex crimes in Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code; (ii) penalty for mistake in identify in Article 49
of the Revised Penal Code; (iii) when the offender took advantage of his
public position in the commission of a crime in Article 62(1)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code (iv) when the offense was committed by any person
who belongs to an organized/syndicated group in Article 62(1)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code; and (v) in quasi-recidivism in Article 160 of the
Revised Penal Code.

24. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the
victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by
reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. This criterion applies,
whether the attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be
in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. [People v. Pulgo, G.R. No.
218205, 5 July 2017]

25. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into

consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They
are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education
of the offender. [REV. PEN. CODE, art. 15]