i Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11) ii Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12) iii Mitigating Circumstances (Art.

13) iv Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14) v Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)

Justifying Circumstances - there is no crime - no criminal liability; no civil liability (except par. 4) - the acts are justified (persons are not criminals) - burden of proof: lies on the accused

Other factors:

1. Self-Defense

vi Absolutory Circumstances - exempting circumstances not mentioned in Art. 12 - act commited is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed - Art. 6, 20, 124, 247 (1 & 2), 280 (3), 332 and 344 (4)

Requisites: a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

vii Extenuating Circumstances - mitigating circumstances not mentioned in Art. 13 - Art. 20 & 332 Aggression - condition sine qua non to invoke self-defense; indispensible element - must be offensive and criminal, continuous and non-mutual Terms: - 2 kinds a. actual a material attack; the aggressor shows wrongful intent by committing the unlawful aggression; danger must be present (actual danger must be repelled) b. imminent attack is at the point of happening (imminent danger must be prevented)

Imputability quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner; implies that the act committed has been freely and conciously done

Responsibility the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime (Difference: Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person; responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed) Note: - Insulting words, without physical assault, does not constitute unlawful aggression - Under the new Civil Code, a person may use force or violence to protect his property (exercise of a right; not Guilt an element of responsibility (Man cannot be made answerable to a crime unless he is guilty) unlawful aggression) - When aggressor flees, unlawful aggression ceases

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)

Stand ground when in the right - where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon - new rule (old rule : retreat to the wall) - reason: if one flees from the aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked by the latter

Battered Woman - 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 - characterized by a cycle of violence (the tension building phase the acute battering syndrome the loving or nonviolent phase)

Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights - defense of right to chastity - defense of property (only when coupled with attack on the person) - defense of home (manner of entry constitute unlawful aggression)

Land mark cases: - People vs. Alconga (page 163, 2008 ed.) - People vs. Dolfo (page 188, 2008 ed.)

2. Defense of Relatives

Test of reasonableness of the means used will depend upon: - the nature and quality of weapons - physical condition, character and size - other circumstances considered

Persons who can be defended: a. spouses b. ascendants c. descendants d. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees e. relatives within the fourth civil degree

Requisites of 3rd element: a. no provocation given by the person defending himself b. if there is provocation, it is insufficient c. if there is provocation, it is not given by the person defending himself d. if there is provocation, it is not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression

Requisites: a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it c. Lack of participation in relatives provocation

Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a Defense - Under Rep. Act 9262 VAWC - Sec. 26: Victims who are suffering from BWS do not incur criminal and civil liability even if the requisites of self-defense are not present Stranger anyone not considered as a relative 3. Defense of Strangers

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)

Requisites: a. Unlawful aggression b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed c. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive (actuated by generous or uninterested motive) Exercise of Office (Example) 4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury - executioner of Bilibid prison is not liable for murder - surgeon who amputated the leg of a patient to save the - also known as the State of Necessity latter is not guilty of mutilation Requisites of Exercise of Rights: a. The accused must have acted in the exercise of right b. The injury caused or the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of lawful exercise of duty

Requisites: a. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists b. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it c. There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

6. Obedience to an Order for Some Lawful Purpose

Requisites: a. An order has been issued by a superior b. Such order must be for some lawful purpose c. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another.

Note: There is a civil liability under this circumstance. The person to whom the benefit is attributed shall be civilly liable to the person who received the harm or damage. The civil liability shall be in proportion to the benefit received. - The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent.

5. Fulfillment of Duty

Requisites: a. The accused must have acted in the performance of a duty b. The injury caused or offense should have been the necessary consequence of due performance of duty

Landmark case: People vs. Felipe Delima (Page 205, 2008 ed. / 46 Phil. 738)

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)

Exempting Circumstances - non-imputability - there is criminal liability but the person is exempted - since there is a criminal liability, there is a civil liability except in accident or insuperable cause - burden of proof: lies on the defendant

Basis: Complete absence of intelligence or element of voluntariness

2. Minor Under Nine Years

- Repealed by R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 - The age of nine is raised to fifteen

1. Insanity or Imbecility

Insanity complete deprivation of intelligence or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will (does not always exempt the insane if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval)

Basis: Complete absence of intelligence

3. Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years

Imbecility a person, while in advanced age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between 2 and 7 years of age (always exempted from criminal liability)

- Impliedly repealed by R.A. 9344

General rule: A minor under 15 is exempt from criminal liability Presumption: Always in favor of sanity Circumstantial Evidence presumption of sanity necessary to overthrow General rule: A minor under 18 but above 15 is exempt from criminal liability Exception: Unless he has acted with discernment (in which case, he shall be preceded against the provision of Art. 80 of the RPC) entitled to privilege mitigating circumstance (penalty decrease of one degree) Covered by the term insanity: Dementia Schizophrenia, Epilepsy (in certain cases only) Praecox, Periods of Criminal Responsibility a. Age of absolutory irresponsibility 9 yrs and below (infancy) b. Age of conditional responsibility between 9 and 15 years Note: An imbecile or insane cannot distinguish from right or wrong c. Age of full responsibility 18 or over to 70 d. Age of mitigated responsibility over 9 and under 15 (offender acted with discernment); 15 or over but less than 18; Other cases of lack of intelligence: - Committing a crime while in dream (somnambulism) - Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria (such illness affects the nervous system) Intent desired act of the person over 70 years of age

Not covered: Feeblemindedness, Kleptomania, Pedophilia, Amnesia

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)

Discernment - mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong; moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act - shown by the manner of committing the crime and conduct of offender

Accident something that happens outside the sway of the persons will; lies beyond the bounds of humanly unforeseeable consequences Negligence consequences are plainly foreseeable [accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other)

Child in Conflict with the Law (CiCL) - children who are accused of transgressing the law - those, during the commission of the crime, are less than 18 years of age but more than 15 years - shall enjoy the presumption of minority 5. Irresistible Force Basis: Lack of negligence and intent (the person does not commit either an intentional or culpable felony)

Authorities are prohibited from calling CiCL as juvenile delinquents, young criminals, prostitutes or any other degrading names

- The person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

Elements Committed an offense (age) a. 15 years or under exempting (intervention program under section 20) b. 15 years or above but below 18 (acted without discernment) exempting (intervention program) c. 15 years or above but below 18 (acted with discernment) privilege mitigating (diversion program under chapter 2) Who has the burden of proof of age? The person who alleges the age of CiCL Basis: Complete absence of freedom (an element of voluntariness) Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my act.) Note: Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force. a. Compulsion is by means of physical force b. Physical force must be irresistible c. Physical force must come from a third person

4. Accident

Elements: a. A person is performing a lawful act b. With due care c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident d. Without fault or intention of causing it

6. Uncontrollable Fear

- The person is compelled to commit a crime but not by means of force but by threat or intimidation

Elements: a. There exist an uncontrollable fear of an injury

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)

b. The fear must be real and imminent c. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

Duress as a valid defense - based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for ones life or limb - should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear - a threat of future injury is not enough

Basis: Complete absence of freedom (an element of voluntariness) Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act done by me against my will is not my act.)

7. Prevented by Insuperable Cause

Elements: a. An act is required by law to be done b. That a person fails to perform such act c. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

Basis: The person acts without intent (absence of the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony)

The Law Chic | www.thelawchic.com

Notes taken from The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book of Luis B. Reyes (Book One, 2008 ed.)