CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
ART 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES & prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
-­‐   Are those where where the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with law, and is free from both criminal and
civil liability.
-­‐   There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of ART 11.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
- Imputability, implies that the act committed has been freely
and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the
doer as his very own.
- Responsibility, the obligation of suffering the consequences
of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime.
⇒   Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a
person, responsibility implies that the person must
take the consequence.
⇒   Guilt, an element of responsibility, a man cannot be
made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless
he is guilty.
FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights
•   Unlawful aggression;
•   Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
•   Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, ascendants, or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:
•   The evil sought to be avoided actually exist
•   The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it
•   There be no other practical and less harmful means
preventing it
•   Anyone who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
•   Who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
for some lawful purpose
•   2019 Act No. 3815, s. 1930 | Official Gazette of the
Republic of the Philippines
5. Any person who acts in the filament of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.
Burden of proof – circumstances mentioned in ART 11 are
matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in
order to avoid criminal liability.
Self-defense - Well-entrenched is the rule that where the
accused invokes self- defense, it is incumbent upon him to
1 | REYES
defense of himself.
Must be proved with certainty by sufficient,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige
of criminal aggression.
Burden of proof rests upon the accused, it is his duty
to establish self defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any
separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful.
REQUISITES TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF SELF-
DEFENSE
1.   Unlawful aggression by the victim
2.   Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
3.   Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself
1.1   UNLAWFUL AGREESION
- For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be
assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent
manner. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to
prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense will have no
basis.
2 KINDS OF AGGRESSION
1.   Lawful
2.   Unlawful - Unlawful aggression is equivalent to
assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate
and imminent kind. Refers to an attack that has
actually broken out or materialized or at the very
least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral
threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.
FOR LAWFUL AGRRESION:
- The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more
or less violent manner is an aggression, but it is lawful.
FOR UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
The circumstance that it was the accused, not the
deceased, who had a greater motive for committing the crime
on the ground that the deceased had already sufficiently
punished the accused
- Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke
self-defense if he killed the offended husband who was
assaulting him.
- Peril to one’s life
1. Actual – danger must be present
2. Imminent – danger is on the point of happening.
- Peril to one’s limb
⇒   The peril to one's limb may also be actual or only
imminent.
⇒   includes peril to the safety of one's person from
physical injuries.
⇒   An attack with fist blows may imperil one's safety
from physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful
aggression.
- There must be actual physical force or actual use of
weapon
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
⇒   insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter
how objectionable they may have been, without
physical assault, could not constitute unlawful
aggression.
⇒   A light push on the head with the hand does not
constitute unlawful aggression. But a slap on the face
is an unlawful aggression.
⇒   Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. the act of
slapping another constituted the use of force
qualifying an unlawful aggression.
•   the face represents a person and his dignity,
slapping it is a serious personal attack.
⇒   “Foot-kick greeting” is not unlawful aggression.
- A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount
to an unlawful aggression.
•   Retaliation is not self-defense.
-The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the
deceased by defendant should succeed each other without
appreciable interval of time.
⇒   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.
-The unlawful aggression must come from the person
who was attacked by the accused.
-A public officer exceeding his authority may become an
unlawful aggressor.
-Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the
accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie
claim of self- defense.
1.   The accused claiming self-defense, exhibited a small
(1 ½ inches long) scar caused by an instrument on his
head.
2.   The location, number and seriousness of the stab
wounds inflicted on the victims belie the claim of self-
defense.
3.   The nature, character, location, extent of the wounds
suffered by the deceased belie any supposition that it
was the deceased to was the unlawful aggressor.
4.   Appellant's theory of self-defense is negatived by the
nature and location of the victim's wounds 
 characterized the assault considered
5.   In view of the number of wounds of the deceased,
nineteen (19) in number, the plea of self-defense
cannot be seriously entertained. 
 necessity on the part of the person attacked to prevent or
6.   The accuse was the only eyewitness to the crime.
- The fact that the accused declined to give any statement
when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with
the plea of self defense.
- When the aggressor flee, unlawful aggression no longer
exists.
- Retreat to take more advantageous position.
•   Unlawful aggression is considered still continuing.
- No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight.
- Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and
place is unlawful
- One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self
defense.
- “Stand ground when in fight”
2 | REYES
•   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.
- Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
⇒   Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to
chastity.
1.   Embracing a woman, touching her private
parts and her breast, and throwing her to the
ground for the purpose of raping her.
2.   Placing a hand by a man on the woman’s
upper thigh.
⇒   Defense of property
can only be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one the entrusted
with said property
⇒   Defense of home
- The belief of the accused may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression
- Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not
preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not
unlawful aggression
EXAMPLE OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL INJURY:
⇒   One aims a gun at another with intention of shooting
him
⇒   Act of a person retreating 2 steps and placing his hand
in his pocket with a motion indication his purpose to
commit assault with a weapon
⇒   Act of opening a knife, making a motion as if to make
an attack
1.2   REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
- Necessity of the course of action
•   Place and occasion of the assault considered
•   The darkness of the night and the surprise which
- No necessity of the course of action taken
The theory of self-defense is based on the
repel the unlawful aggression, and when the danger or
risk on his part has disappeared.
- When the aggressor is disarmed
- Person defending is not expected to control his blow.
Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean
the killing of the unlawful aggressor. But 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.
- When the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left
to the one making a defense to determine what course of action
to take.
3 KINDS OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE
1. Self-defense
2. defense of a relative
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
3. defense of a stranger
⇒   The one defensing himself must not have given cause
for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting
or provoking the assailant.
CASES WHICH 3RD REQUISITE OF SELF DEFESE
CONSIDERED PRESENT:
1.   When no provocation at all was given to the
aggressor
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 the person
-Battered woman syndrome
Under R.A. No 9262 otherwise known as Anti-
Violence Against Woman and their Children Act of 2004;
"Sec. 26. Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense. —
Victim- survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered women syndrome do not
incur criminal and civil liability not with- standing
the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code. “
⇒   In the 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 psychiatrist/
psychiatrists/psychologists."
⇒   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. Battered
women include wives or women in any form of
intimate relationship with men.
2.1 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED
1.   Spouse
2.   Ascendants
3.   Descendants
4.   Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters,
or relatives by affinity in the same degrees.
5.   Relatives by consanguinity w/in 4th civil degree
⇒   The clause, "in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked," used in stating the third
requisite of defense of relatives, does not mean that
the relative defended should give provocation to the
aggressor.
- The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
immaterial
Ex; if A had slapped the face of B who, as a
consequence of the act of A, immediately commenced to
retaliate by drawing a knife and trying to stab A, and C,
father of A, killed B in defense if his son, C is completely
justified.
3.1 DEFENSE OF STRANGER
REQUISITES:
1.   Unlawful aggression
3 | REYES
2.   Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
Person defending be not be induced by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.
⇒   This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be
actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, when
it puts down "revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive" as illegitimate.
- The person defending “be not induced”
Even if a person has a standing grudge against the
assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger out of
generous motive to save the stranger from serious bodily harm
or possible death, the third requisite of defense of stranger still
exists.
4.1 AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
⇒   “Damage to another”, this term covers injury to
persons and damage to property.
⇒   The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be
avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may
happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Art. 11 is not
applicable.
⇒   As a rule, there is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of Art. 11
where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited. The persons for
whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have received.
- The greater evil should not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudence of the actor.
- When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot
invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a
greater evil or injury.
- The evil which brought about the greater evil must not
result from a violation of law by the actor.
5.1 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE
OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
REQUSITES:
1.   The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office
2.   The injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty
or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
- Fulfillment of Duty
- Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
justified; but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested
is not justified.
The doctrine is restated in the Rules of Court thus:
"No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any
greater restraint than is necessary for his detention." (Rule
113, Sec. 2, par. 2)
- Legitimate performance of duty
- Distinguished from self defense and from consequence of
felonious act.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
- Lawful exercise of right or office.
Under the Civil Code (Art. 429), the owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may
use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property. It is not necessary that there be
unlawful aggression against the person charged with the
protection of the property. If there is unlawful aggression
against the person charged with the protection of the property,
then paragraph 1 of Art. 11 applies, it being a defense of right
to property.
- Doctrine of “Self-Help” under Art. 429, Civil Code,
applied in Criminal Law
6.1 OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME
LAWFUL PURPOSE
REQUISITES:
1.   Order has been issued by a superior
2.   Such order must be for some lawful purpose
3.   The means by the subordinate to carry out said order
is lawful.
⇒   Both person who gives the order and the person who
executes it, must be acting within the limitation
prescribed by law.
- When order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate
who obeyed it is criminally liable.
- 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.
When the accused acted upon orders of superior
officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not question,
and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of their
illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is not
liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not
negligent.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
  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.
Exemption of punishment is based on the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or absence
of negligence on the part of the accused.
ART 12. CIRCUMSTANCES WITH EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABLITY
1. AN IMBECILE OR AN INSANE PERSON, UNLESS
THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID
INTERVAL
⇒   During lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence.
⇒   Imbecile within the meaning of ART 12 is one
who is deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime
⇒   Mere abnormality o metal faculties is not enough,
especially if the offender has not lost
consciousness of his acts.
4 | REYES
- Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a
felony.
The court shall order confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylum, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without obtaining permission of the court. But court has no
power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without
obtaining the opinion of DOH.
- Burden to proof to show insanity
Defense must prove that the accused was insane ta the
time of the commission of the crime, presumption is always in
favor of sanity. Sanity, being the normal condition of the
human mind, the prosecution may proceed upon the
presumption that the accused was sane and responsible when
act was committed.
-Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony
distinguished from insanity at the time of trial
When a person is insane at the time of the commission
of felony, he is exempt of criminal liability. When is was sane
at the time of the commission, BUT becomes insane at the time of
trial, he is liable criminally.
- Evidence of Insanity
Must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution of 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. He who relies
on 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.
- Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity
- Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia praecox
Most common form of psychosis.
- Kleptomania
If the unlawful act of the accused is due “to his mental
disease or 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,” shall be considered ‘insanity’.
- Feeblemindedness is not imbecility
Can not fall to insanity because it can still distinguish
right from wrong.
-Pedophilia is not insanity
A mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. It
was explained that Pedophilia is a sexual disorder wherein the
subject has uncontrollable sexual and physical fantasies about
children, however, despite affliction, the subject could
distinguish between right and wrong.
- Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the accused.
Amnesia is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is
shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the
nature or quality f his action and that it was wrong.
OTHER CASES OF LACK OF INTELLIGENCE
•   Committing a crime while in a dream
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
Ø   Somnambulism or sleepwalking, act of the
person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the
plea of insanity and must be clearly proven.
Ø   Hypnotism, still datable to exempt from liability
•   Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
malaria
Ø   Such illness affects the nervous system and
causes among others such complication as acute
melancholia and insanity at times.
2. A PERSON UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE (OR LESS)
⇒   R.A. No. 9344 otherwise known as “Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006” raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from 9 to 15 years of age.
Ø   Under SEC of the said law, a child 15 years of
age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
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.
⇒   A child above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
an intervention program, unless he/she has acted
with discernment, in which case, such child shall
be subject to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.
PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
1.   Age of absolute irresponsibility – 9 years and below
(infancy)
2.   Age of conditional responsibility – between 9 and 15
years
3.   Age of full responsibility – 18 or over to 70
4.   Age of mitigating responsibility – over 9 and under
15, offender acting discernment; 15 or over but les
than 18; over 70 of age
⇒   Senility which is over 70 years, although said to be
the second childhood, is only a mitigating
responsibility.
- Discernment & Intent distinguished
•   Intent, refers to the desired act of the person
•   Discernment, relates to the moral significance that a
person ascribes to the said act.
DISCERNMENT MAY BE SHOWN;
1.   Manner of committing the crime.
When a minor committed crime during
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot
to another town to avoid discovery.
2.   Conduct of offender
- Allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information is
sufficient allegation of discernment
4. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A
LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY
5 | REYES
BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OF
CAUSING IT.
ELEMENTS;
1.   Person is performing a lawful act
2.   With due care;
3.   He causes injury to another by mere accident
4.   Without force or intention of causing it.
- 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 in self-defense, is unlawful—it is
light threat
- What is an accident?
Something that happens outside the sway of our will,
and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bound of humanly foreseeable consequences.
⇒   An accident is a fortuitive circumstances
⇒   Negligence, is the failure to observe
⇒   Accident and negligence are intrinsically
contradictory; one cannot exist with the other
- When claim of accident not appreciated
⇒   Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere
accident
⇒   Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words
preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostate
body of the victim, instead of immediately helping.
5. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF AN IRRESTABLE FORCE
ELEMENTS:
1.   Means of physical force
2.   Force must be irresistible
3.   Force must come from a third person
- Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force, it
must be coming from a third person.
Based on the complete absence of freedom, an element
of voluntariness. A person who acts under the compulsion of
an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.
6. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE
OF AN UNCROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR
GREATER INJURY
ELEMENTS:
1.   Threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than
or at least equal tom he is required to commit.
2.   It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that
the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
- 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
- Irresistible force, offender uses violence or physical force to
compel another person to commit a crime
- Uncontrollable fear, offender employs intimidation or threat in
compelling another to commit a crime.
- “Actus me invite factus non est meus actus”, an act done
by me, against my will is not my act.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13
7. ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT
REQUIRED BY LAW, WHO PREVENTED BY SOME
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
ELEMENTS:
1.   Act is required by law to be done
2.   A person fails to perform such act
3.   His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful
or insuperable cause.
•   Exempts the accused from criminal liability, because
he acts without intent, the third condition of
voluntariness in intentional felony.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFYING AND
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
•   Person who acts by virtue of a justifying
circumstances does not transgress the law, he does
not commit crime in front of the law.
•   There is a crime but no criminal liability.
⇒   Absolute cases, are those where the act committed is
a crime but for no reason of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty.
- Absolutory causes are those where that act committed is a
crime but for reason of public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed.
- Entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose
of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the execution of
his criminal plan, there is no bar to prosecution and conviction
of the lawbreaker.
- Instigation, public officer induces an innocent person to
commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the
commission of the crime by the latter. The accused must be
acquitted.
⇒   There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the
violation of the law is simply discovered
COMPLETE DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL CASE
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:
•   Spontaneous desistance during attempted
stage
•   Light felony is only attempted of frustrated
•   The accessory is a relative of the principal
•   Legal grounds for arbitrary detention
•   Legal grounds for trespass
•   The crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief is committed against a relative
•   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
•   Marriage of the offender with the offended
party when crime committed is rape,
6 | REYES
abduction, seduction, or acts of
lasciviousness
•   Instigation
5.   Guilt of the accused not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
6.   Prescription of crimes
7.   Pardon by the offended party before the institution of
criminal action in crime against chastity.
ART 13. 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. These are based on the
diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or
on the lesser perversity of the offender.
CLASSES OF MITIGATION CIRCUMSTANCES
1.   Ordinary mitigating – enumerated in subsections 1 to
10 of ART 13
2.   Privileged mitigating
⇒   ART 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
18 years of age
•   Person under 15 years of age, and a person
over 15 and under 18 who acted without
discernment.
•   A person over 15 and under 18 who acted
with discernment, the penalty next lower
than the prescribed by law shall be imposed
⇒   ART 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable.
⇒   ART 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
contain 3 periods.
Whether it be a single divisibility penalty or
composed of three different penalties, each
one of which forms a period.
- When there are 2 or more mitigating factors and no
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law.
PRIVELEGED MITIGATIONG CIRCUMSYTANCES
APPLICABLE ONLY TO PARTICULAR CRIMES
⇒   Voluntary release of the person illegally detained
within 3 days without the offender attaining his
purpose and before the institution of criminal action.
Penalty is one degree lower.
⇒   Abandonment without justification of the spouse who
committed adultery. Penalty is one degree lower.
- Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any
aggravating circumstances; while Privileged mitigating cannot
be offset by aggravating.
- Ordinary mitigating if not offset by aggravating, produces
only the effect of applying the penalty penalty provided in its
minimum period; whereas, Privileged mitigating produces the
effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one
or two degrees than that provided by the law.
- Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do
not change the nature of crime.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13 7 | REYES
1. THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING 3. THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO
CHAPTER WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT
NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY ACT OR TO EXEMPT COMMITTED.
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITYIN THE RESPECTIVE Can be taken into account only when the facts proven
CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT. show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between
the means employed to execute the criminal act.
WHEN ALL THE REQUISITE NECESSARY TO
EXEMPTFROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY ARE NOT
ATTENDANT.
1.   Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over
9 and under 15 years of age
2.   Incomplete exempting circumstances of accident
3.   Incomplete exempting circumstances of
uncontrollable fear

2. ART 13 RPC IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY RA NO.

9344
An offender fifteen (15) or over but under eighteen
(18) years of age is entitled only to the benefits provided under
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, under Republic Act No.
9344 or the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," such
offender may be exempt from criminal liability should he/she
acted without discernment.
⇒   Diversion refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and
treatment of a child in conflict with the law on basis
of his/her social, cultural, etc background.
SYSTEM OF DIVERSION
1.   Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed
is not more than six (6) years imprisonment shall
conduct mediation, family conferencing and
conciliation
2.   In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is
not more than six (6) years of imprisonment, the local
social welfare and development officer shall meet with
the child and his/her parents or guardians for the
development of the appropriate diversion
3.   Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed
exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion
measures may be resorted to only by the court.

-> If during the conferencing, mediation or conciliation, the

child voluntarily admits the commission of the act, a diversion
program shall be developed when appropriate and desirable as
determined under Section 30
-> The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a
child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be
eighteen (18) years old or older. In case of doubt as to the age
of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor.

- That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic

mitigating circumstances
there were two cases where the fact that the offender
is over 70 years of age had the effect of a privileged mitigating
circumstance, namely: (1) when he committed an offense
punishable by death, that penalty shall not be imposed (Art. 47,
par. 1) and (2) when the death sentence is already imposed, it
shall be suspended and commuted. (Art. 83)