IX.

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Articles

11, 12, 13, 14 & 15)

There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

1. Justifying circumstances under Article 11;

2. Exempting circumstances provided for under Article 12;
3. Mitigating circumstances prescribed in Article 13;
4. Aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14;

5. Alternative circumstances classified under Article 15 as either mitigating or

aggravating.

1
 Offenders falling under either Article 11 or 12 are without criminal liability;
those benefited by the circumstances in Article 13 have reduced criminal liability;
those proved to be more perverse by committing the felony with any of the
circumstances in Article 14 have increased criminal liability; and those who act
while under the circumstances stated in Article 15 will have their liability either
increased or reduced depending upon the situation obtaining in the commission of
the felony.

There are two others which are found elsewhere in the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code:

1. Absolutory circumstances which refer to exempting circumstances outside

Article 12 such as certain relatives who acted as accessories to the offenders as stated in
Article 20 in relation to Article 19, and those covered by Article 332 for crimes and
relatives enumerated therein, among others.

2. Extenuating circumstances which are mitigating circumstances not found in

Article 13, such as paragraph 3 of Article 333 and the mother in the crime of infanticide
in Article 255. The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability of the offender. In
other words, this has the same effect as mitigating circumstances, only you do not call it
mitigating because this is not found in Article 13.

The following are exempting/absolutory circumstances:

1. Instigation by reason of public policy;

2. Art. 6(3) — spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage unless the overt act
committed already constitutes another crime than that intended;
3. Art. 7 — attempted/frustrated light felonies except those against persons or
property;
4. Art. 16 — accessories in light felonies;
5. Art. 20 — certain accessories;
6. Art. 247 — physical injuries except serious physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances;
7. Art. 332 — certain persons in theft, estafa, and malicious mischief;
8. Somnambulism;
9. Mistake of fact; and
10. Absolute repeal of a penal law

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

The act of the person is said to be in accordance with law --- he is considered not to
have transgressed the law thus, he incurs no criminal liability.

Important Points:

Self-defense applies only to crimes against persons --- like homicide or murder or physical
injuries
Note: Art. 11 is a matter of defense. The defense of self-defense should be proved by
clear & convincing evidence which is approximately proof beyond reasonable doubt ---
the burden of proof rest on the accused.

Why? --- because when one invokes self-defense – the accused automatically admit that
he killed the victim.

Rule: Since there is no crime, necessarily there is no civil liability ex delicto. Except:
In paragraph 4, wherein civil liability may be adjudged against those who benefited

2
 from the act which caused damage to the property of the victim but spared their own
properties from consequent damages. The civil liability in Par. 4 is provided for in
Art. 101, and is commendably in line with the rule against unjust enrichment.

Q: What are the rights included in self-defense?

A: Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted
but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes:

(1) Defense of the person's home

(2) Defense of rights protected by law
(3) The right to honor (Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful
aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious,
personal attack (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789, Jan. 14, 2004).
(4) The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the
property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner
of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present
(People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L- 33466-67, Apr. 20,1983).

Requisites of self-defense

1) Unlawful aggression - U
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it - R
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself-L

Q: What are the effects of self-defense?

A: (1) When all the elements are present - the person defending himself is
free from criminal liability and civil liability and (2) When only a majority of
the elements are present - privileged mitigating circumstance provided there
is unlawful aggression.

Q: What is the nature of an unlawful aggression?

A: For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an "actual,
sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude" and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of real aggression.

3
 Elements of unlawful aggression

(1) There must be a physical or material attack or assault;

(2) The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
(3) The attack or assault must be unlawful

Two kinds of unlawful aggression

(1) Actual or material unlawful aggression which 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;

(2) Imminent unlawful aggression which is an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude (People v. Mapait, G.R. No.
172606, November 23, 2011

Q: What kind of threat that will amount to unlawful aggression?

A: In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful
intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger
—not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life (People v Maningding, G.R.
No. 195665, September 14, 2011)

Q: What is the test for unlawful aggression in self-defense

A: The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is
whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of
the person defending himself.

Case: Rustia vs People, G.R. No. 208351, October 5, 2016

Facts: X went to the barangay hall to attend a conciliation meeting over a land dispute with A. A
was accompanied by B and C. Since the barangay captain was not around, X proceeded to go
home but outside the barangay hall heated argument ensued involving X and A. X was carrying
at the time a gun which was tucked on his waist. B and C grappled with X. When A saw X
reached for his gun, X wrested it from X’s possession, shot and killed X. A invoked the
justifying circumstance of incomplete self defense.

SC: According to them, unlawful aggression manifested itself when Ambrocio reached for the gun tucked
in his waist. Yet, they did not thereby establish that Ambrocio had really reached for his gun and actually
taken it out. xxxxx It is remarkable at least that none of the three disinterested eyewitnesses saw
Ambrocio reaching for the gun first. Thus, the claim of incomplete self-defense is rejected.

Q: What is the effect if there was a mistake of fact on the part of the accused?
A: In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the accused may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression. There is self- defense even if the
aggressor used a toy gun provided that the accused believed it to be a real gun

Q: May a person act in defense of his property?

Example: A, thief, tries to run away with your wallet. In order to stop him from
running. You shoot him. Can you claim self-defense by invoking that there was an
unlawful aggression on your property right because he was taking your wallet. Are
4
 you justified in saying: “I have to shoot him because there was an unlawful
aggression on my property rights.

A: NO. Defense of property can give rise to self-defense only if the attack on one’s
property is coupled with an attack on his person.

Q: Can there be self-defense when what is involved is property?

A: If what is to be saved is property ONLY, killing is not justified. To justify killing,
it must be necessary to do it in order to save another life.
If the aggression is on the property, even if there was no attack on the defender or
owner or possessor, defense is proper but not to the extent of taking life. Killing the
aggressor will not be justified because the means used to repel or prevent the
aggression will not then be reasonable.

REASON: The value of property can never be equated to human life which is supposed
to be priceless.

DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP – under Art. 429, the law justifies the act of the owner or lawful
possessor of a thing in using such force as necessary to protect his proprietary or possessory
rights, but not to the extent of taking the offender’s life UNLESS there is danger posed on the
person defending himself.

Read: People vs Annibong, 403 SCRA 92; Pp vs Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572; Pp vs Gallego, 406
SCRA 6

SECOND ELEMENT: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression.

“prevent” --- actual aggression

“repel”-------a threatened aggression

Note: In preventing or repelling you must use reasonable means.

Q: What do you mean by “reasonable means”?

A: (1) the course of action taken is reasonable and (2) the weapon used to defend
must also be reasonable.

Q: What is “course of action taken is reasonable?

A: The offender’s conduct and response to the occasion

Q: When is there reasonable necessity of the means employed?

5
 A: It depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of mind of
the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal. IT CANNOT BE
MEASURED BY MATHEMATICAL EQUATION.

Factors taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of means employed by the
person defending himself:

(1) Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor.

(2) Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of both the offender and
defender.
(3) Place and occasion of the assault.

Rule: When a person is attacked – a person will instinctively used the first available means
at his disposal to defend himself – when a person is under attack --- he is not expected to
think cooly and to choose what kind of weapon he is going to use.

“Reasonableness of the weapon” ---- is not only measured by using a knife against a fist; a club
as against a chaco.

Note: “Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability
between the means of attack & defense. What the law requires is “rational equivalence” (Pp vs
Gutual, 254 SCRA 37).

Note: you have to consider the 1) size or power of the weapon, 2) the character of the
parties & 3) their relative standing.

THIRD ELEMENT: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

If you were the one who cause the aggression – no self defense because you gave provocation.
You cannot say that you are totally faultless because you are partly to be blamed.

Ex: A provokes B, by reason of the provocation, B attacks A, a defends himself with reasonable
means. A cannot claim self-defense.

PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER:

1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by person defending himself.

2. Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient.
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.
4. Even if provocation was given by person defending himself, it was not the proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression.
5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one
to its commission.

Q: How do you determine whether or not the provocation is sufficient?

6
 A: The provocation that was given in such that it is normal and natural for a person to
react by becoming an unlawful aggressor. For provocation to be considered serious by
the court, the degree must be sufficient and must at all times be immediate to the
unlawful aggression. (Castanares vs. Court of Appeals, 92 SCRA 567)

Q: A, unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then took out his gun which caused A to
run away. B, after treating his wounds, pursued A and shot him. Can B invoke self-
defense?

A: No. The unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists. When the
aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to
wound the former aggressor. In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-
defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be
simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded
each other without appreciable interval of time.

RULE: The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his
blow. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as long as the mortal
wounds are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete self- defense are still present

NOTE: The aggression ceases except when retreat is made to take a more advantageous
position to insure the success of the attack begun, unlawful aggression continues.

Problem:

Q: One night, Ana, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when
she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Arman, who came home a
day early from his business trip, Ana let him have sex with her. After the act, the man
said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned
upon Ana that the man was not Arman, her husband. Furious, Ana took out Arman’s
gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide, Ana denies culpability on the ground
of defense of honor, is her claim tenable? (1998 BQ)

A: No, Lina’s claim that she acted in defense of honor is not tenable because the
unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in
self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There
is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.

Q: May self-defense be belied and negated by the nature and number of wounds
found on the victim?
A: Yes. the nature and number of wounds on the victim belie the claim of self-
defense.

SC: The victim sustained no less than six (6) stab wounds; two of the stab wounds
were elliptical, on the right side of the chest, severing the upper lobe of the right lung
and the descending aorta, while the other

7
 four (4) stab wounds were located at the right side of the interscapular area. The
number, locations and depth of the wounds sustained by the victim belie appellant
Alfredo's pretension that he killed the victim in self-defense; the same are proof that
Alfredo intended to kill the victim and not merely to defend himself. (People vs.
Gallego, 406 SCRA 6 (2003)

Q: What else would belie self-defense?

A: The flight of the accused negates self-defense. People vs. Geneblazo, 361 SCRA
572 (2001) - the flight of the accused belies the claim of self-defense. The accused-
appellant admitted that he recognized SPOl Quiogue after he had stabbed the victim
for the second time. His taking flight and going into hiding instead of surrendering to
SPO1 Quiogue on the spot was highly evidentiary of guilt, and incompatible with his
claim of self-defense. Flight negates self-defense and indicates guilt. (People vs.
Gregorio, 255 SCRA 380 [1996].

Q: May the justifying circumstance of self-defense be invoked at the same time with
the exempting circumstance of accident?
A: No. Self-defense is a defense inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of
accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense
necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from
imminent danger. (Pomoy vs People, September 29, 2004)

The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 – RA 9262 Q:

Battered Woman defined?

A: A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly subjected to
any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights."

NOTE: In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering
cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If
it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.
(People vs. Marivic Genosa, 341 SCRA 493 (2000) and 419 SCRA 537 (2004).

Q: Must the battered woman be married to the man?

A: No. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship
with men.

Q: How many times must the woman be "battered"?

A: In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the
battering cycle at least twice.

Q: What are the 4 characteristics of the battered woman syndrome?

A: The 4 characteristics of the battered woman syndrome are: 1st — The
woman believes that the violence was her fault;

8
 2nd — She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere;
3rd — She fears for her life and/or her children's lives; and
4th — She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Q: What are the common personality traits of a battered woman?

A: Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self- esteem,
traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role; emotional
dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the
batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship will improve.

Q: Is the battered woman syndrome characterized by the "cycle of violence"?

A: Yes. The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so- called "cycle of
violence."

Q: What are the 3 phases of the "cycle of violence"?

A: The "cycle of violence" has 3 phases, namely:
1st — The tension-building phase; 2nd —
The acute battering incident;
and 3rd — The tranquil, loving (or, at least, non-violent) phase.

Q: What is the effect of battery on a woman?

A: Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her
state of mind metamorphoses. Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is
somehow responsible for the violent behavior of her partner, she also believes that he
is capable of killing her, and that there is no escape. Battered women feel unsafe,
suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship. Unless a
shelter is available, she stays with her husband, not only because she typically lacks a
means of self-support, but also because she fears that if she leaves she would be
found and hurt even more.

Note: As a general rule, under Section 26 of the Act, the Battered Woman Syndrome is a valid
defense.

It reads "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 under the RPC. In determination of the
state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists."

Rule: In other words, the Battered Woman Syndrome is a valid justifying circumstance.

9
 Except: As an exception to the general rule, under Section 27 of the Act, the Battered
Woman Syndrome shall not be a valid defense when the woman is under the influence of
alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance.

Q: Who are those women who can avail of BWS as a defense?

A: (1) Wife; (2) Former wife; (3) Against a woman with whom the person has or had
a sexual or dating relationship; or (4) With whom he has a common child, or against
her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode

NOTE: The "dating relationship" that the law contemplates can exist even without a sexual
intercourse taking place between those involved.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

Requisites of defense of relatives

1. Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Relative being defended gave no provocation.

NOTE: The law gives a leeway on the third requisite, even if the relative being defended gave
the provocation, if the relative making the defense had no part therein, he can successfully
invoke the defense of relative.

Relatives covered under defense of relatives:

1) Spouse;
2) Ascendants;
3) Descendants;
4) Legitimate, adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the same degrees
(namely: ascendants-in-law; descendants-in-law, and siblings-in- law)
5) Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Requisites of defense of strangers:

(1) Unlawful aggression

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
(3) Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

10
 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
In defense of relatives, even
though the person making the
defense acted out of some evil
motive, he can still invoke the
justifying circumstance, as long as
he did not contribute to the
unlawful aggression
DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
In defense of strangers, if the
person making the defense acted
out of revenge, resentment or
some evil motive in killing the
aggressor, he cannot invoke the
justifying circumstance.

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

Requisites of state of necessity (El-PC)

a) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.

b) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
c) There be no other Practical and less harmful means of preventing it, and
d) There must be no Contribution on the part of the accused what caused the
evil to arise.

NOTE: The state of necessity must not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.

NOTE: Generally, there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances. The civil liability
referred to herein is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of
necessity. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the
state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate in the damage or injury
would be civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity.

Case: People vs Punzalan, December 10, 2012

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

Requisites of fulfillment of duty

1) Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a

right or office.
2) Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Problem:

A: Lucresia was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, Lucresia,
while in her store, noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-iun. As
soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought the help of
Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the
latter. Pat. Reyes

11
 introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-jun who
resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in
the air but Jun-Jun continued to run. Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-
Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to
pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters
away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat.
Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he
eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide. During
the trial, Pat. Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted
in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? (2000 BQ)

A: No. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a

condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable
or necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People v.
Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943). It is not enough that the accused
acted in fulfillment of a duty. After Jun-Jun was shot In the right leg and was
already crawling, there was no need for Pat Reyes to shoot him further.
Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty, which brought about the
cause of death of the victim.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose (OLM)

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

NOTE: Both the person who gives the order, and the person who executes it, must be
acting within the limitations prescribed by law.

Q: What is the effect if there is good faith on the part of the subordinate?
A: If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegality, ha is
not liable. However, the order must not be patently illegal. If the order is
patently illegal, this circumstance cannot be validly invoked.

NOTE: Even if the order is patently illegal, the subordinate may still be able to invoke
an exempting circumstance: having acted upon the compulsion of an irresistible force, or
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear

12