SEATWORK IN CRIMINAL LAW I

24 AUGUST 2019

1. Enumerate and discuss extensively the elements that must be established by

the accused in order for the court to appreciate in his/her favor the circumstances
under Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code.

ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying circumstances are those where the acts of the actor are in accordance with
the law, thus he incurs no criminal liability. Since there is no crime, there is no
criminal and civil liability.

SELF-DEFENSE
Self-defense is not limited to one’s life. The following is the scope of self-defense;
1. Defense of life;
2. Defense of honor or chastity;
3. Defense of property provided that it is coupled with an attack on the person
entrusted with the said property;

Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression;
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;

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful Aggression is an attack with physical force or with a weapon as to cause
injury or danger to life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression must come from
the victim.

Unlawful aggression is the primordial requisite which must at all times be present.
When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self-defense whether complete or
incomplete.

Element: (People v. Dulin)

1. There must be physical or material attack or assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent;
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful;

REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO

PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
When you say reasonable necessity, what the law requires is rational equality or
rational equivalence as determined by the emergency. Rational is the means
employed. Rationally necessary to prevent or repel it.

Factors of Reasonable Necessity

1. Nature and the number of the weapon used by the aggressor;
2. Physical condition, size, weight and other personal circumstances of the
aggressor versus that of the person defending himself;
3. Place and location of the assault;

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

There must be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

Provocation
Provocation refers to any immoral act or conduct, unjustified act or conduct which
stirs a person to do wrong.

Sufficient Provocation
Sufficient Provocation refers to an act which is adequate to stir a person to do the
wrongful act and when it is proportionate to the gravity of the act.

No Sufficient Provocation:
1. When no provocation at all was given;
2. When although provocation was given, it was not sufficient;
3. When although the provocation was sufficient, it did come from the
person defending himself; and
4. Although provocation came from the person defending himself, it is not
immediate or imminent to the aggression;

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making
the defense had no part therein;

DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
Elements:
The following are the elements of defense of a stranger;
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
attack;
 3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or motive;

STATE OF NECESSITY
As a rule, it is noted that justifying circumstances are exempt from criminal as
well as civil liability. However, this paragraph of Article 11 is an exception when it
comes to civil liability. Although he is not criminally liable, he is civilly liable;
Civil liability is born not only by the accused, but all those people who benefitted in
this state of emergence. Under Art. 101 of the RPC, “In cases falling within
subdivision 4 of Art 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.

Elements:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it;

FULFILMENT OF A DUTY OR IN A LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT

OR OFFICE
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office.

Elements:
1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office;
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office;

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME

LAWFUL PURPOSE.
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
Elements:
The following are the elements;
1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful;

ARTICLE 12 – EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
Exempting Circumstance are those grounds for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which makes the act
voluntary or negligent.
INSANITY AND IMBECILITY
In this paragraph there are two exempting circumstances;
1. Imbecility;
2. Insanity;

Just like exempting circumstance, imbecility and insanity are both

admission and avoidance. In effect, invoking insanity and imbecility is
tantamount to admitting the crime. But in order to avoid criminal liability,
he invokes that he is either insane or imbecile.

Imbecile
An imbecile is one who is already advanced in age but only have a thinking
of a child between 2 and 7. There is no intelligence, an element of
voluntariness.
Imbecility is exempting under any circumstance.

Insanity
Insanity refers to the mental aberrational background or disease of the mind
and must completely impair the intelligence of the accused.
Insanity is not exempting under any circumstance. If it can be shown that he
committed the crime in lucid interval, he is liable.

Presumption of Sanity
In your civil code, it is presumed that the person is sane. Therefore the
burden of evidence is on the defense. Therefore, all the accused has to do is
to prove that he was insane when he committed the crime.

MINORITY
The second and third circumstance was already amended by R.A. 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. This refers to a child in conflict of
the law. A child in conflict with the law is a child who is alleged as, accused
of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws.

Criminal Liability
R.A. 9344, if a child committed a felony when he is 15 or below, he is
exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15 but below 18, but he did not
act with discernment, he is exempted from criminal liability. If he is over 15
but below 18 and he acted with discernment, he is not exempted from
criminal liability and he will be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

Suspension of Sentence
 Under Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344, once the child who is under 18 years of age at
the time of the commission of the crime was found guilty of the offense
charged the court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may
have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing
the judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the
law under suspended sentence, without need of application. Provided
however, that the suspension of the sentence shall still be applied even if the
juvenile is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
of his guilt. Therefore, as long as he is 18 years and below at the time of the
commission of the crime, even if he is above 18 at the promulgation of the
judgment, he can still benefit from the suspended sentence.

ACCIDENT
In the case of People v. Del Cruz (G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010) An
accident is an occurrence 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.

Elements;
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident;
4. Without fault or intention causing it;

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Elements;
1. There must be Compulsion is by means of physical force;
2. Physical force must be irresistible;
3. Physical force must come from a third person;

In irresistible force, the offender must be reduced as a mere instrument, that

he is not acting in his will. Therefore, if he is acting against his will,
voluntariness is absent.

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.

Elements;
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. Fear must be real and imminent;
 3. Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed;

LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CASUE

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

Elements;
1. An act is required by law to be done;
2. A person fails to perform such act;
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause;

ARTICLE 13 – MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Mitigating Circumstances are those circumstances which if present or attendant in
the commission of a felony would reduce the imposable penalty because it shows
lesser perversity or criminality of the offender.

Mitigating circumstances need not be alleged in the information in order to be

appreciated by the court provided that such circumstance is shown and proven
during the trial. There is a lesser criminality on the part of the offender because the
offender acted with the diminution of any of the elements of voluntariness.

There is a diminution on the following;

1. Criminal intent;
2. Freedom of action; or
3. Intelligence.

Kinds of mitigating Circumstance

1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance;
2. Privilege Mitigating Circumstance;

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance

An Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance is one which may be offset by a
generic aggravating circumstance aggravating circumstance. If an ordinary
mitigating circumstance is not offset by a generic ac it would reduce the
imposable penalty to its minimum period.

Privilege Mitigating Circumstance

A Privilege Mitigating Circumstance is one which cannot be offset by any
ac and the effect of privilege mitigating circumstance is to reduce the
imposable penalty not only to its period but by one or more degrees
 Privilege Mitigating or Ordinary Mitigating
The following are the rules to determine whether an incomplete
justifying or incomplete exempting circumstance should be treated
as privilege or ordinary mitigating;
1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from liability are present, then it’s treated as privilege
mitigating circumstance;
2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an ordinary
mitigating circumstance which can be offset by a generic
aggravating circumstance;
3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt
from criminal liability is only 2, the presence of 1 element is
already a privilege mitigating circumstance .

MINORITY/SENILITY
That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case
of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80.

There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Minority;
2. Seniority;

Minority
Remember that if minority is not exempting, it is always and always a
privilege mitigating circumstance. Never an ordinary mitigating
circumstance
So if the offender is over 15 but below 18, and he acted with discernment, it
is not exempting but it is a privilege mitigating circumstance.

Senility
Senility (a person over age70) is generally an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

PRAETER INTENTIONEM
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
We have already studied this in Art. 4. This is praeter intentionem.

Elements;
1. The offender committed a felony;
2. There must be a notable or notorious disparity between the means
employed by offender and the result felony.
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act. There must be a sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party and it must immediately precede the commission of the crime.

Elements:
1. The provocation must be sufficient;
2. It must be immediate to the commission of the crime;
3. it must originate from the offended party;

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the
one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.

Elements;
1. That there be a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or
sister, or relatives by affinity within the same degree;
2. It requires that the said act or grave offense must be the proximate cause
of the commission of the crime.

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.

Elements;
1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation;
2. The act that must produce passion and obfuscation must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by the considerable length of
time during which the offender might have recovered his normal
equanimity;

*Passion and obfuscation on the part of the accused must arise from lawful
sentiments because an unlawful act was committed against him.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT

That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or
his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;

There are 2 mitigating circumstance here;

1. Voluntary surrender;
2. Voluntary plea of guilt;

If both are present, you have to consider always 2 mitigating circumstance. They
have different elements and would always arise from different set of facts and
circumstances. Therefore, they are always separate and distinct from each other.

Voluntary Surrender
Elements
1. The offender had not actually arrested; T
2. The offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority
or his agent; S
3. Such surrender must be voluntary;

Voluntary Plea of Guilt

Elements:
1. That guilt tendered is confessed spontaneously and unconditionally;
2. That he confesses guilt in open court that is before the court tried his
case;
3. The confession that was made before the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;

PHYSICAL DEFECT
That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical
defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with
his fellow beings.

For this mitigating circumstance to lie in favor of the accused, it is necessary that
there must be a connection, a relation between the physical defect and the crime
committed. It is necessary that the said physical defect must have restricted his use
of action, defense or communication with his fellow being.

ILLNESS
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of
the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
So this is illness. It is necessary that the said illness must diminish the exercise of
the will-power of the offender. But it must not deprive him of his consciousness of
his act because if it will deprive him of consciousness of his act, then it is
exempting not merely mitigating.

ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those
above mentioned.
 Any other circumstance which is similar in nature from the 1st to the 9th paragraph,
then it is also considered as a mc.

2. Provide a case digest for one decided case on each of the justifying, exempting
and mitigating circumstances. Make sure that the case that you will be summarizing
is not included in the syllabus provided to you earlier.

JUSTIFYING
PEOPLE v. CAMPOS
G.R. No. 177751 | 14 December 2011

FACTS: According to the testimony of the prosecution witness, the deceased

Abad was buying cigarettes at his shop when he saw the 2 accused running
towards Abad. Without provocation, Acabo stabbed Abad while Campos stood
nearby. After stabbing Abad, the 2 left. Abad was brought to the hospital but
shortly thereafter died. Campos and Acabo were charged with the murder of Abad.
According to the accused, they stabbed Abad out of self-defense. The accused
narrated that while they were walking, they were attacked by a group of 4 people,
2 of whom they were able to identify by name. However, the accused never
identified Abad as among those who attacked them. The RTC convicted both the
accused for the murder of Abad, which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether the stabbing was a case of self-defense?

HELD: No, the prosecution is burdened with the task to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, if the accused admits to the
commission of the offense but raises a justifying circumstance as a defense, the
burden of proof shifts to the accused who invokes said circumstance.

The requisites for self-defense are: 1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim; 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to prevent
of repel the unlawful aggression; and 3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the accused defending himself.

In this case, the claim of self-defense is belied by the testimony of the accused.
While they claim to have acted in their defense while being attacked by a group of
men, they did not identify Abad as among those attacking them. In fact, there was
no mention of Abad at all in their testimony. As such, there was no unlawful
aggression that may be imputed on Abad. As unlawful aggression is a condition
sine qua non in self-defense, the accused cannot validly invoke the same.

EXEMPTING
 PEOPLE v. BARON
G.R. No. 185209 | 28 June 2010

FACTS: Baron along with others was charged with the Special Complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide. Baron and others rode the tricycle of the victim and midway to
the journey declared a holdup. They took the wallet and the tricycle of the victim while
some of the accused dragged the driver to the side of the road and stabbed him to death.
Baron raised the defense of existence of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable
fear/irresistible force of an equal or greater injury. He claims that he was just afraid of his
co-accused. And that the existence of the conspiracy was not duly proven.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baron is guilty.

HELD: Yes, there were numerous occasions that Baron could escape but he did not do
so. While his co-accused was stabbing the victim Baron was left alone inside the tricycle.
He did not even attempt to escape. Therefore, the exempting circumstance could not be
appreciated in this case.

There was no evidence adduced in this case that the appellant attempted to prevent the
killing. Thus, regardless of the acts individually performed by the appellant and his co-
accused, and applying the basic principle in conspiracy that the “act of one is the act of
all,” the appellant is guilty as a co-conspirator

MITIGATING
PEOPLE v. AGACER
G.R. No. 177751 | 7 January 2013

FACTS: Respondents were convicted for the crime of murder of one Cesario Agacer.
They filed this MR before the SC alleging that there is no evidence of conspiracy and that
no treachery can be imputed against them since a heated argument preceded the killing.
And even if they are guilty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should
have been appreciated in favor of appellant Franklin Agacer (Franklin) who was only 16
years and 106 days old at the time of the incident, having been born on December 21,
1981. OSG was required to comment on the issue of minority but did not oppose it the
same being duly supported by a copy of Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth secured from
the National Statistics Office (NSO) Document Management Division.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of Franklin’s minority should be

appreciated.

HELD: Yes, the rationale of the law in extending such leniency and compassion is that
because of his age, the accused is presumed to have acted with discernment. This is
regardless of the fact that his minority was not proved during the trial and that his birth
certificate was belatedly presented.

Franklin’s Certificate of Live Birth shows that he was born on December 20, 1981,
hence, was merely 16 years old at the time of the commission of the crime on April 2,
1998. He is therefore entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
embodied in Article 68(2) of the Revised Penal Code. It provides that when the offender
is a minor over 15 and under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed on the accused but always in the proper period.

3. Enumerate and explain the distinctions between ordinary and privileged

mitigating circumstances?

An Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance is one which may be offset by a generic aggravating

circumstance aggravating circumstance. If an ordinary mitigating circumstance is not
offset by a generic ac it would reduce the imposable penalty to its minimum period.

A Privilege Mitigating Circumstance is one which cannot be offset by any ac and the effect
of privilege mitigating circumstance is to reduce the imposable penalty not only to its
period but by one or more degrees

*If in the computation of penalties there’re aggravating circumstances, mitigating

circumstances, if there is a privilege mitigating circumstance, that presence of privilege
mitigating circumstance takes preference over all other things. Before you can even the
appropriate penalty, you still have to first consider the presence of the privilege mitigating
circumstance. That is how important that is why it’s privileged.
Ordinary Mitigating v. Privilege Mitigating

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGE MITIGATING

Can be offset by generic aggravating Cannot be offset by any kind of aggravating
circumstance; circumstance;
Lowers the penalty to the minimum period Lowers the penalty by one or two degrees;
except when there are two ordinary
mitigating circumstance in which case the
penalty is lowered by one degree only;
Not considered in the determination of the Always considered regardless of the penalty
proper penalty when the penalty prescribed imposed’
by law for the single crime is a single
indivisible penalty;

The following are the rules to determine whether an incomplete justifying or incomplete
exempting circumstance should be treated as privilege or ordinary mitigating;
1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from liability are
present, then it’s treated as privilege mitigating circumstance;
2. If less than the majority is present, then it is an ordinary mitigating circumstance which
can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance;
3. If the elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability is only 2,
the presence of 1 element is already a privilege mitigating circumstance.

4. May the accused invoke accidental self-defense as a justifying circumstance?

Explain.

No. In the case of Toledo vs. People (G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004), the Supreme
Court held that there is no such thing as accidental self-defense. You cannot invoke self-
defense and accident at the same time. Because in self-defense it is direct and positive
overt act in the name of self-preservation. The offender killed the victim so as to preserve
his own life. It is direct and positive. It cannot be done out of accident imminence.
Therefore, it is inconsistent with accident.

5. May the accused invoke Battered Woman Syndrome as a justifying

circumstance?

Yes. According to the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A.
9262), a battered woman is 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. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered woman,
the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. In the case of People v.
Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004) the Supreme Court held that the battered
woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called cycle of violence, which has three
phases; 1) The tension-building phase; 2) The acute battering incident; and 3) The tranquil,
loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the tension-building phase, minor battering
occurs. It could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or
by simply staying out of his way. All the woman wants is to prevent the escalation of the
violence exhibited by the batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because
her placatory and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to abuse her
in the first place. The next phase, the acute battering incident is said to be characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. At this stage, the woman has a sense of
detachment from the attack and the terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember
every detail. Her apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus:
the batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past
painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are often very
savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or intervenors are likely to get
hurt. Lastly, the tranquil or loving phase, is where the couple experience profound relief.
On one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner.
He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the battered woman
also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will
change for the better; and that this good, gentle and caring man is the real person whom
she loves. In conclusion, Battered Woman Syndrome is similar to justifying. It is even
better than self-defense because in self-defense, you have to prove that the elements are
present. However, in battered woman syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is
suffering from battered woman syndrome. It is through the expert testimony of the
psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome. If
this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil liability.

6. Discuss the difference between entrapment and instigation.

In People vs Naelga (G.R. No. 171018, September 11, 2009) The Supreme Court
differentiated instigaton and entrapment.

INSTIGATION
The mens rea (evil intent) originated
from the mind of the public officer;
An absolutory cause by reason of public
policy;
The public officer is liable as principal
by inducement;
ENTRAPMENT
The mens rea (evil intent) originated
from the mind of the offender;
Not an absolutory cause;
The public officer is not criminally liable;

7. What is the test in determining the validity of a buy-bust operation?

In People v. Doria, we stressed the "objective" test in buy-bust operations. We ruled that in
such operations, the prosecution must present a complete picture detailing the transaction,
which "must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of
the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. We emphasized that the
manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment
of the 'buy-bust' money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit
an offense."

8. Distinguish the effect of validly proving the existence of justifying circumstance

from that of an exempting circumstance.

In Justifying Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
b. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.

Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:

a. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as
an instrument of the crime;
d. There being a wrong done but no criminal.

9. In relation to Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, discuss who can invoke the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.

Article 13(2) covers minors above 15 years but below 18 years of age (16-17 years old),
who acted with discernment. These minors shall be entitled to the benefits of a privileged
mitigating circumstance, which is reduced by one degree. The basis for the basis of
mitigation: diminution of intelligence. Without discernment, it is an exempting
circumstance.

10. Cite instances that are analogous to surrender and confession of guilt. Explain.

SURRENDER
PEOPLE v. SALES
G.R. No. 177218 | 03 Oct 2011

FACTS: Neomar and Junior left their home without permission and did not return
that day. They were found the following day in a nearby barangay. Upon returning
home, Noel Sales, furious with his children, tied them to a coconut tree and beat
them with a thick piece of wood. Shortly thereafter, Neomar collapsed and lost
consciousness. Attempts to bring the boy to a hospital were futile as there as no
vehicle passing by. Neomar shortly passed away and was buried after a short wake.
Sales surrendered to the police the day after. Sales contends that the beating caused
Neomar’s death and it was due to difficulty of breathing for having a weak heart
and having epilepsy which caused his death. In addition, he claims to have only
been disciplining his children.

ISSUE: Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was

present

HELD: Yes, the presentation by appellant of himself to the police officer on duty in
a spontaneous manner is a manifestation of his intent “to save the authorities the
 trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture” which is the
essence of voluntary surrender.

CONFESSION OF GUILT

PEOPLE VS CALPITO
G.R. No. 123298 : November 27, 2003

FACTS: Calpito was charged with Robbery with Homicide. Initially, Calpito
entered a plea of not guilty, but after reinvestigation and re-arraignment, changed
his plea to
guilty. Court then charged Calpito of Murder instead of robbery with Homicide due
to prosecution’s failure to sufficiently prove robbery.

ISSUE: Whether or not Calpito should be credited with mitigating circumstance of

voluntary plea of guilty even though he pleaded not guilty on the first arraignment.

RATIO: YES.
The requisites of this circumstance are:
(1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
(2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent
court that is to try the case; and
(3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution.

In this case, upon re-arraignment, appellant, in the presence of his counsel, and in
open court, voluntarily pleaded guilty to the crime charged before the prosecution
presented its evidence. This mitigating circumstance should therefore be considered
in computing the proper penalty.

11. The accused charged with murder offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser
crime of homicide but such offer was rejected by the prosecutor. Trial proceeded and
the court found the accused liable only for homicide. Should the previous offer of
guilt to the lesser offense of homicide be appreciated in the imposition of penalty
against said accused? Why or why not?

No. For a plead of guilt to be valid, it must be done voluntarily, spontaneously and
unconditionally. Because of his offer, the plead of guilt should not be considered as
mitigating.

12. Enumerate and explain five (5) other circumstances analogous to the
mitigating circumstance under paragraph 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
1. In malversation of public funds, the payment, indemnification, or
reimbursement of the funds misappropriated may be considered a mitigating
circumstance being analogous to voluntary surrender.
2. A person is already of 65 years of age who is very sick, with failing sight and
suffering from a disease, it can be said to be analogous to seniority. It will
mitigate his criminal liability.
3. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is
considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. However, this is not
so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of
living his life. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices, as a result of
which he became poor, his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will
not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity.
4. The act of a thief or offender in leading the authorities to the place where he
disposed of the loot or where he buried the instrument of the crime has been
considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender.
5. Impulse of jealousy due to the fact that you saw your spouse holding hands
with another man which resulted to you inflicting physical injuries on him, it
is analogous to passion and obfuscation.