Article 12

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. An imbecile or an insane person, UNLESS the latter has acted during lucid interval.
-When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the same court.
2. A person under 9 years old (Modified by Sec.6 of RA 9344. Min. Age now is at 15 years old)
3. A person over 9 years old and under 15, 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. (Where the age is now above 15 but below 18, the child shall now be subject to an
intervention program)
-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 care of some institution or person mentioned in said 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.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.
IN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES- there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises.
-technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the E.C. Commits a crime, although by the complete
absence of any conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.

BURDEN OF PROOF- any of the circumstances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter of defence and the same
must be proved by the defendant.

An imbecile or an insane person, UNLESS the latter has acted during lucid interval.

IMBECILITY vs INSANITY

-Imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that
he acted during a lucid interval
-During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence
-An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years of age.
-An imbecile is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the
time of committing the crime. (People vs Ambal)
-To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total
deprivation of the freedom of the will while committing the act, that is, the accused be deprived of
reason, that he acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of
will. (People vs Formigones)
-Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, the
accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least discernment, or that there is a total deprivation
of the will. (People vs Puno)
-Thus, 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. (Art. 13, par.9)

PROCEDURE WHEN THE IMBECILE OR THE INSANE COMMITTED A FELONY

-The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the Court.
-But the court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without first obtaining the
opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger.

BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW INSANITY

-The defence 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 (People vs Bascos)
-Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the prosecution may proceed upon the
presumption that the accused was sane and responsible when the act was committed.
-The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of proof of insanity is on the defence.
(People vs Aquino)

AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO OVERTHROW THE PRESUMPTION OF SANITY

-In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive
evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time.
-Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a
defense.
-Mind can be known only by outward acts.
-thereby, we read the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether
his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind.
-To prove insanity, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.

-When a person was insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt from criminal
liability.
-When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the trial, he is
liable criminally.
-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 evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.
-He is presumed to be sane when he committed it.
-if the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, the presumption of its continuance does
not arise.
 He who relies to such insanity proved at another time must prove its existence also at the time
of the commission of the offense.
  Where it is shown, that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will be presumed that the offense
was committed in one of them.
 But 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.

CASES
1. DEMENTIA PRAECOX IS COVERED BY THE TERM INSANITY.

-When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox, homicidal attack is
common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is being
taken.
 During the period of such excitement, such person has no control whatever of his acts.
 The unlawful act of the accused may be 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 the doing the act.
 In the Bosnian case (supra), an irresistible homicidal impulse was considered embraced in the
term, “insanity”

2. SCHIZOPRHENIA, FORMERLY CALLED DEMENTIA PRAECOX

-Chronic mental disorder characterised by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
-most common form of psychosis.

3. KLEPTOMANIA
-If the unlawful act of the accused is due “to his mental disease or a mental defect, producing 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, should be considered as covered by
the term insanity.
-If the mental disease or mental defect of the accused only diminishes the exercise of his willpower, 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.

4. EPILEPSY
-may be covered by the term insanity
-but if the accused 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.

5. FEEBLEMINDEDNESS
-not exempting
-because the offender could distinguish right from wrong.

6. PEDOPHILIA
-not insanity
-despite his affliction, he could still distinguish between right or wrong

7. AMNESIA
-not proof of mental condition of the accused
-amnesia in 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.
-Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused.

OTHER CASES OF LACK OF INTELLIGENCE

1. Somnambulism- or sleepwalking, where the acts of the person afflicted are automatic, is
embraced in the plea of insanity and must be clearly proven. (People vs Giemna)
 The case of a somnambulist falls under the rule that a person is not criminally liable if
his acts are not voluntary. (US vs Odicta)
 One who while sleeping, suddenly got up, got a bolo, and upon meeting his wife who
tried to stop him, wounded her and also attacked other persons, is not criminally liable,
it appearing that the act was committed while in a dream. The act was done without
criminal intent (People vs Taneo)
2. Hypnotism- still debatable question
3. Malignant Malaria- not criminally liable because such illness affects the nervous system and
causes among others such complication as acute melancholia and insanity at times. (People vs
Lacena)
BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 1
-based on the complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness

Par. 2- A person under nine years of age.

“Under nine years” to be construed “nine years or less”

-should be construed “nine years or less”, as may be inferred from the next subsequent paragraph
which does not totally exempt a person “over nine years of age” if he acted with discernment

AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY RAISED TO 15 YEARS OF AGE.

-RA 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
-Under Section 6, a child 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.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 2
-complete absence of intelligence

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.

Par. 3, Art 12 of the RPC impliedly repealed by RA 9344.

Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC is deemed repealed by the provision of RA 9344 declaring a child 15
years of age or under exempt from criminal liability. The law provides thus:

Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility- A child 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 pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child is deemed to be 15 years of age on the day of the 15th anniversary of his birthdate.

A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be EXEMPT from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, UNLESS he acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall
be subject to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability established does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.”

-Children above 15 but below 18 years of age who acted without discernment EXEMPT from criminal
liability
 Indicates an exemption to the GR that a minor under 18 but above 15 has acted without
discernment
 Thus it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor who is over 15 but under 18
years of age has acted with discernment, in order for the minor not to be entitled to this
exempting circumstance.
4 PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
1. Absolute irresponsibility- 15 years and below (infancy)
2. Conditional responsibility- 15 years and 1 day to 18 years.
3. Full responsibility- 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
4. Mitigated responsibility- 15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting with discernment;
over 70 years of age (senility)
CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
-is a person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below 18 years but not less than 15
years and one day old.
MEANING OF DISCERNMENT
-means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
-it is his 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. (People vs Doquena)
DETERMINATION OF DISCERNMENT
-shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological components of
criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child can be held
responsible for essentially antisocial behaviour.
DISCERNMENT vs INTENT
INTENT- refers to the desired act of the person while
DISCERNMENT- relates to the moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.
-Discernment may be shown in:
1. Manner of committing the crime; or
2. Conduct of the offender
PRESUMPTION OF MINORITY
-CICL with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and shall enjoy all the rights of a child in
conflict with the law until proven to be 18 years old or older at the time of the commission of the
offense.
-In case of doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of the child
RULES ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE AGE OF THE CHILD
1. BEST EVIDENCE- An original or CTC of the certificate of live birth;
2. In the absence of a certificate of the live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificates and school records or any pertinent document that shows the date of birth of the
child;
3. In the absence of the documents under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section due to loss,
destruction or unavailability, the testimony of the child, the testimony of a member of the
family related to the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters
respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the child pursuant to Section 40,
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, the testimonies of the other persons, the physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence, shall suffice.
BURDEN OF PROOF OF AGE
-Any person alleging the age of the CICL has the burden of proving the age of such child
-If the age of the child is contested- a case for determination of age under summary proceeding may be
filed before the Family Court which shall render its decision within 24 hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all the parties.
-In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a categorical finding as to the age of the child.
-It is held that the requirement that there should be an allegation that she acted with discernment
should be deemed amply met with the allegation in the information that the accused acted “with the
intent to kill.”
-The allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew that would be the consequence of her unlawful
act of pushing her victim into deep water and that she knew it to be wrong. (People vs Nieto)

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 3- complete absence of intelligence

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.

ELEMENTS:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
 Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously injured the
assailant, is a lawful act.
 But the act of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, not being a self-defense is
unlawful.
2. With due care;
 This exempting circumstance cannot be applied to the appellant because its application
presupposes that there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing
the lawful act with due care, whereas, in this case, the prosecution had duly established
that the appellant was guilty of negligence.
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it. (People vs Vitug)
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.
-If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.
-Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done.
 Art. 12 (4) of the RPC, contemplates a situation where a person is in fact in the act of
doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the process
produces harm or injury to someone or to something not in the least in the mind of the
 actor- an accidental result flowing out of a legal act. Indeed, accident is an event that
happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of
our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
 In short, accident presupposes the lack of intention to commit the wrong done.
 In case of negligence, it is not accident.
ACCIDENT vs NEGLIGENCE
Accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human
agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstance
is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection and interest of another person, that degree of
care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand without which such other person
suffers injury.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 4- lack of negligence and intent.

 Under this circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable
felony.

Paragraph 5- Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

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 3rd person.
 Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon
the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such,
incapable of committing a crime.
 It must be such that, in spite of the resistance of the person on whom it operates, it compels his
members to act and his mind to obey.
 Such a force can never consist in anything which springs primarily from the man himself; it must
be a force which acts upon him from the outside and by a third person.
 The irresistible force can never be impulse or passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an
extraneous force coming from a 3rd person.
 NATURE: 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.
BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 5- complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.

Paragraph 6- Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.

 This presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion
is by means of intimidation or threat, not by force or violence.
 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.
  The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense
o A threat of future injury is not enough.
o The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused
for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
o Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he had
wanted to or to resist any possible aggression because he was also armed.
o In treason, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate
death.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than that 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.
REQUISITES:
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. The fear must be real and imminent; and
3. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
In Irresistible force- the offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a
crime; in uncontrollable fear- the offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 6- Complete absence of freedom.

 Actus me in it facts non est menus actus- an act done by me against my will is not my act.

Paragraph 7- Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

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.

BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 7- lack of intent

 In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime.
o Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence.
JUSTIFYING vs EXEMPTING

1. A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the law, that is, he
does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act
as well as in the intention of the actor.
o The act of such person is in itself both just and lawful.
o In JF, there is neither a crime nor a criminal.
o No civil liability except in paragraph 4 (causing damage to another in state of necessity)
2. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability.
o The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable.
 o There is civil liability, except in paragraphs 4 and 7 (causing an injury by mere accident;
failing to perform an act required by law by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Article
12.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES- are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Other absolutory causes:

1. Article 6- The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a
felony before he could perform all the acts of execution.
2. Article 20- Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability- The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendant, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling with the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
o Article 19, paragraph 1- By profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by
the effects of the crime.
3. Article 124, last paragraph- The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment
requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal
grounds for the detention of any person.
4. Art 247, pars 1 and 2- Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances- Any
legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
o If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.
5. Article 280, paragraph 3- The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling) shall not be
applicable to any person who shall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be
applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to
humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses,
while the same are open.
6. Article 332- Persons exempt from criminal liability- No criminal, but only civil, liability shall result
from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually by the following persons:
a) Spouses, ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the same line.
b) The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
c) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
7. Article 344, paragraph 4- In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit
the penalty already imposed upon him.
o The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

 Instigation is an absolutory cause

o Basis- a sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice
(instigation) by directing the acquittal of the accused.
  Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
 GR: It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were
purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the ‘decoy solicitation’ of
persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were
present and apparently assisting its commission.
o Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually
committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.
o Mere deception by detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by
him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective.
o The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no
defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was
formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by the thief as his
confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities, and being authorized by them
to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed.
ENTRAPMENT vs INSTIGATION
Instigation- The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense
and himself becomes a co-principal;
o When there is instigation, the accused must be acquitted (People vs Yutuc, etc)
o The law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who
adopts the idea and carries it into execution
o The legal effects of instigation exempt the criminal from liability.
o A public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would
arrest him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter.
o It is an absolutory cause
Entrapment- ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker
in the execution of his criminal plan.
o Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of lawbreaker
o The means originates from the mind of the criminal.
o The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him.
o The legal effects of entrapment does exempt the criminal from liability.
o In entrapment, a person has planned, or is about to commit, a crime and ways and means are
resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch the criminal.
o Entrapment is not a defense.

 Instigation must be made by public officers or private detectives

o A criminal act may not be punishable if the accused was induced to commit it by active
cooperation and instigation on the part of public detectives.
o A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice by directing
an acquittal whenever it appears that the public authorities or private detectives, with
their cognisance, have taken active steps to lead the accused into the commission of the
act.
o If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public
function, both he and the one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed: the
former, as principal by induction; and the latter, as principal by inducement.
 There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered
 Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liablility
o Not even the President could give such assurance of immunity to any violator.
o His constitutional power of clemency can be exercised only after conviction.
COMPLETE DEFENSES ON 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 to 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 a slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised
his spouse or daughter bin 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.
6. Prescription of crimes (Art 89)
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity.
(Art 344)
III. 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.
BASIS- based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser
perversity of the offender.

CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. ORDINARY MITIGATING- those enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of Article 13.
o Those mentioned in subsection 1 of Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances, if
Article 69, for instance is not applicable.
2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING-
a. ART. 68- Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of age. – When the offender
is a minor under 18 years of age and his case falls under the provisions of the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act, the following rules shall be observed:
i. A person under 15 years of age, and a person over 15 years of age who acted
without discernment, are exempt from criminal liability;
ii. Upon a person over 15 and under 18 years of age who acted with discernment, the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
proper period. (As amended by RA No. 9344)
b. ART. 69- Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable- A
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to
justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability xxxx, Provided, That the majority of such
conditions be present.
c. ART. 64- Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods- In cases where
the penalties prescribed by law contain 3 periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of 3 different penalties, each one of which forms a period xxx, the courts shall
 observe the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or
aggravating circumstances:
Xxx
(5) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
 Privileged mitigating circumstances are applicable only to particular crimes
o Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days without the offender
attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminal action (Art 268, par. 3). The
penalty is one degree lower.
o Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery. (Art. 333,
par. 3) The penalty is one degree lower.
 ORDINARY vs PRIVILEGED
o Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while
privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.
o Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravating circumstance, produces only the
effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum period, in
case of divisible penalty; whereas, privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing
upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law
for the crime.
 Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the crime.
o Where the accused is charged with murder, as when treachery as a qualifying
circumstance is alleged in the information, the fact that there is a generic or privileged
mitigating circumstance does not change the felony to homicide.
o If there is an ordinary or generic MC, not offset by any AC, the accused should be found
guilty of the same crime of murder, but the penalty to be imposed is reduced to the
minimum of the penalty for murder.
o If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty for murder will be reduced
by one or two degrees lower.
o In every case, the accused should be held guilty of murder.
o The MC reduces the penalty provided by law but it does not change the nature of the
crime.