Article 12.

The following are exempt from criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a 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 nine years of age.

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.

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.

Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits a crime, although by
the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
criminal liability arise.

Any of the circumstances mentioned in this article is a matter of defense and the same must be proved by
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

The 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 two and seven years of age.

An imbecile within the meaning of this article is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime.
In order that the exempting circumstance of insanity may be taken into account, it is necessary that there
be a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of
reason; that he acts with the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will.

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.

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.

The presumption is always in favor of sanity. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the
time of the commission of the crime.

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,
therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.

When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the time of 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.

The 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. 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. 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.

Insanity includes Dementia praecox, Schizophrenia, Kleptomania (may be exempting or only mitigating),
Epilepsy (may be considered), malignant malaria.

Feeblemindedness is not exempting because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile
or an insane cannot distinguish right from wrong.

Pedophilia, Amnesia are not covered by insanity.