II. Exempting circumstances.

care of some institution or person mentioned in said

Exempting circumstances (non-imputah-lity)
- are those grounds for exemption from
punishment because there is wanting in
the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary
or negligent.
Basis
- Complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the
absence of negligence on the part of the
accused.
article 80.
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 of an equal or greater injury.

ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required
Criminal Liability. The following are exempt by law, when prevented by some lawful or
from criminal liability: insuperable cause.

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter Burden of proof

has acted during a lucid interval. - must be proved by the defendant to the
satisfaction of the court.
When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a felony Par. 1 An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one latter has acted during a lucid interval.
of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to (based on the complete absence of intelligence, an
leave without first obtaining the permission of the element of voluntariness)
same court.
Imbecility Insane
*court has no power to permit the insane person exempt in all cases from not so exempt if it can
to leave the ayslum without first obtaining the criminal liability be shown that he acted
opinion of the Director of Health that he may be has a mental during a lucid interval
released without danger. development (acts with intelligence)
comparable to that of
2. A person under nine years of age. children between two
and seven years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under Deprived completely of
fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in reason or discernment
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against and freedom of the will
in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of at the time of
this Code. committing the crime.

*A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt Note:

from criminal liability under Rep. Act No. 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and
education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the
To constitute insanity, there must be
1. complete deprivation of intelligence while
committing the act;
2. that the accused be deprived of reason;
3. that he acts without the least discernment
4. That there is a total deprivation of the
freedom of the will.
 Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not
enough, especially if the offender has not
lost consciousness of his acts. At most, it is
only a mitigating circumstance.
Defense must prove that the accused was
insane at the time of the commission of the
crime, because the presumption is always in
favor of sanity.
To prove insanity, therefore, circumstantial
evidence, if clear and convincing, will
suffice.
Exempt from criminal liability
- When a person was insane at the time of
the commission of the felony, he is
Criminally liable
- When he was sane at the time of the
commission of the crime, but he
becomes insane at the time of the trial.
- The trial, however, will be suspended
until the mental capacity of the accused
be restored to afford him a fair trial.
Evidence of insanity
- must refer to the time preceding the act
under prosecution or to the very moment
of its execution
- If the insanity is only occasional or
intermittent in its nature, the
presumption of its continuance does not
arise.
- The defendant had lucid intervals; it will
be presumed that the offense was
committed in one of them.
- a person who has been adjudged insane,
or who has been committed to a hospital
or to an asylum for the insane, is
presumed to continue to be insane.
When defense of insanity is not credible.
Example:
1. If appellant was able to recall all those
incidents, we cannot understand why his
memory stood still at that very crucial
moment.
2. Government psychiatric doctors who had
closely observed the accused for a month
and a half found him in good contact
with his environment and that he did not
manifest any odd behavior for in fact he
could relate the circumstances that led to
his confinement.
3. The accused was afflicted with
"schizophrenic reaction" but knew what
he was doing; he had psychosis, a slight
destruction of the ego; in spite of his
"schizophrenic reaction," his symptoms
were "not socially incapacitating" and he
could adjust to his environment.
Covered by the term insanity
- dementia praecox
o during the period of excitement,
such person has no control
whatever of his acts.
- Schizophrenia
o inability to distinguish between
fantasy and reality and often
accompanied by hallucinations
and delusions.
- Kleptomania
o If the unlawful act of the accused
is due "to his mental disease or a
mental defect, producing an
irresistible impulse, as when the
accused has been deprived or has
lost the power of his will which
would enable him to prevent
himself from doing the act," the
irresistible impulse, even to take
another's property, should be
considered as covered by the
term "insanity."
o if the mental disease or mental
defect of the accused only
diminishes the exercise of his
will-power, and did not deprive
him of the consciousness of his
 acts, then kleptomania, if it be
the result of his mental disease or
mental defect, is only a
mitigating circumstance.
- Epilepsy
o chronic nervous disease
characterized by fits, occurring at
intervals, attended by convulsive
motions of the muscles and loss
of consciousness.
o Where the accused claimed that
he was an epileptic but it was not
shown that he was under the
influence of an epileptic fit when
he committed the offense, he is
not exempt from criminal
liability.
- Feeblemindedness
o not exempting, because the
offender could distinguish right
from wrong.
- Pedophilia
o a sexual disorder wherein the
subject has strong, recurrent and
uncontrollable sexual and
physical fantasies about children
which he tries to fulfill,
especially when there are no
people around.
- Amnesia
o in and of itself, is no defense to a
criminal charge unless it is
shown by competent proof that
the accused did not know the
nature and quality of his action
and that it was wrong.
Other cases of lack of intelligence
- Committing a crime while in a dream
o Somnambulism or sleepwalking,
where the acts of the person
afflicted are automatic, is
embraced in the plea of insanity
and must be clearly proven.
o Hypnotism- Whether or not
hypnotism is so effective as to
make the subject act during
artificial somnambulism is still a
debatable question.
- Committing a crime while suffering
from malignant malaria
o who was suffering from
malignant malaria when she
wounded her husband who died
as a consequence is not
criminally liable, because such
illness affects the nervous system
and causes among others such
complication as acute
melancholia and insanity at
times.
Par. 2. A person under nine years of age
(based also on the complete absence of intelligence)
"under nine years" should be construed
"nine years or less;
Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006"
raised the age of absolute irresponsibility
from nine (9) to fifteen (15) years of age.
Under Section 6 of the said law, a child
fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the
child shall be subject to an intervention
program as provided under Section 20 of the
same law.
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
proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
(based on complete absence of intelligence)
A minor under eighteen (18) but above fifteen
(15) must have acted with discernment to incur
criminal liability.
The life of a human being is divided into four
periods:
 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.
Hence, senility which is the age over 70 years,
although said to be the second childhood, is
only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be
considered as similar to infancy which is
exempting.
Discernment
- 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
circumstances afforded by the records in
each case, the very appearance, the very
attitude, the very comportment and
behaviour of said minor, not only before and
during the commission of the act, but also
after and even during the trial.
Intent Discernment
products of the mental processes
desired act of the person relates to the moral
significance that a flowing out of a legal act.
person ascribes to the
said act
Discernment may be shown by:
1. the manner the crime was committed, or
2. the conduct of the offender after its
commission
Determination of Age:
1. child's birth certificate
2. baptismal certificate
3. any other pertinent documents
In the absence of these documents, age may be
based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the
physical appearance of the child and other
relevant evidence.
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.
(based on lack of negligence and intent)
Elements:
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.
Revised Penal Code which provides that any person
who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of doing it is exempted from criminal
liability.
Accident
- 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 foreseeable consequences.
Purely accidental cases where there was absolutely
no intention to commit the wrong done. It
contemplates a situation where a person is in the act
of doing something legal, exercising due care,
diligence and prudence but in the process, produces
harm or injury to someone or something not in the
least in the mind of the actor an accidental result
When claim of accident not appreciated
1. Repeated blows negate claim of wounding
by mere accident.
2. Accidental shooting is negated by
threatening words preceding it and still
aiming the gun at the prostrate body of the
victim, instead of immediately helping him.
3. Husband and wife had an altercation
Par. 5. Any person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
(based on the complete absence of freedom, an element of
voluntariness)
This exempting circumstance presupposes 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.
Force considered to be an irresistible one
1. it must produce such an effect upon the
individual that, in spite of all resistance,
2. it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as
such, incapable of committing a crime.
The irresistible force can never consist in an
impulse or passion, or obfuscation. It must
consist of an extraneous force coming from a
third person.
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 intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if
the act is not done.
A threat of future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat.
Par. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.
(based on the complete absence of freedom)
Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an
evil greater than 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.
For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable
fear to be invoked successfully, the following
requisites must concur:
(a) existence of an uncontrollable fear;
(b) the fear must be real and imminent; and
(c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least
equal to that committed.
- 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.
- A threat of future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat.
irresistible force uncontrollable
fear
The offender uses The offender employs
violence or physical intimidation or threat
force to compel in compelling another
another person to to commit a crime
commit a crime
Par. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.
(He acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in
intentional felony)
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.
When prevented by some lawful cause
A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and
several other persons were in conspiracy
against the Government.
When prevented by some insuperable cause
The municipal president detained the
offended party for three days because to take
him to the nearest justice of the peace
required a journey for three days by boat as
there was no other means of transportation.
 The severe dizziness and extreme debility of Instigation is an absolutory cause
the woman constitute an insuperable cause. - A sound public policy requires that the
courts shall condemn this practice
Justifying Exempting (instigation) by directing the acquittal of the
circumstances circumstances accused.
Does not transgress There is a crime but no
the law, that is, he criminal Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
does not commit any liability - "ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. -
crime in While it has been said that the practice of
the eyes of the law entrapping persons into crime for the
There is nothing Act is not justified, but purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions
unlawful in the act as the actor is not is to be deplored, and while instigation, as
well as in the intention criminally liable. distinguished from mere entrapment, has
of the actor often been condemned and has sometimes
Act of such person is There is civil liability, been held to prevent the act from being
in itself both just and except in pars. 4 and 7 criminal or punishable, the general rule is
lawful. (causing an that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a
Neither a crime nor a injury by mere crime that facilities for its commission were
criminal accident; failing to purposely placed in his way, or that the
No civil liability, perform an act criminal act was done at the 'decoy
except in par. 4 required by law solicitation' of persons seeking to expose the
when prevented by criminal, or that detectives feigning
some lawful or complicity in the act were present and
insuperable cause) apparently assisting its commission.

Absolutory causes Entrapment instigation

- are those where the act committed is a crime is no bar to the practically induces the
but for reasons of public policy and prosecution and would be accused into
sentiment there is no penalty imposed conviction of the the commission of the
lawbreaker offense and himself
Other absolutory causes becomes a co-principal,
in entrapment, ways
Art. 6. and means are resorted
- The spontaneous desistance of the to for the purpose of
person who commenced the commission trapping and capturing
of a felony before he could perform all the lawbreaker in the
the acts of execution. execution of his
criminal plan. the
Art. 20. accused must be
- Accessories who are exempt from acquitted
criminal liability. The penalties Entrapper resorts to The instigator
prescribed for accessories shall not be ways and means to trap practically induces the
imposed upon those who are such with and capture a would-be defendant
respect to their spouses, ascendants, lawbreaker while into committing the
descendants, legitimate, natural, and executing his criminal offense, and himself
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives plan. becomes a co-principal.
by affinity within the same degrees, with The means originates The law enforcer
the single exception of accessories from the mind of the conceives the
falling with the provisions of paragraph criminal. The idea and commission of the
1 of the next preceding article. the resolve to commit crime and suggests to
the crime come from the accused who adopts
 him. the idea and carries it 6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
into execution. 7. Pardon by the offended party before the
Do not exempt the Instigation does institution of criminal action in crime
criminal from liability against chastity. (Art. 344)
A public officer or a A person has planned,
private detective or is about to commit, a
induces an innocent crime and ways and
person to commit a means are resorted to
crime and would arrest by a public officer to
him upon or after the trap and catch the
commission of the criminal. Entrapment is
crime by the latter. It is not a defense.
an absolutory cause.

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.
2. The act of the accused falls under any of the
justifying circumstances. (Art. 11)
3. The case of the accused falls under any of
the exempting circumstances. (Art. 12)
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.