CRIMINAL LAW MIDTERM REVIEWER
Should commit any of the crimes against national
CHAPTER 1. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Law- branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their
nature, and provides for their punishment.
Crime- act committed or omitted in violation of public law
forbidding or commanding it.
Source of Criminal Law
1. The R.P.C. and its amendments
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature,
National Assembly, Congress, and the Batasang
Pambansa
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
Theories in Criminal Law
1. Classical theory
 Basis of criminal liability is human free will and
the purpose of the penalty is retribution
 Man is essentially a moral creature with an
absolutely free will to choose between good
and evil, thereby placing more stress upon the
effect or result of the felonious act than upon
the man, the criminal himself.
2. Positivist theory
 Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to
do wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition.
 Crime is essentially a social and natural
phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be
checked by the application of abstract
principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the
imposition of a punishment, fixed and
determined a priori(based of theoretical
deduction); but rather through the enforcement
of individual measures in each particular case
after a thorough, person and individual
investigation conducted by a competent body of
psychiatrists and social scientists
Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine Law
I. Generality. Criminal law is binding on all persons
who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory.
Exception:
 The opening sentence of Art. 2 of the R.P.C. says that
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced within the
Philippine Archipelago, “except as provided in treaties
and laws of preferential application.”
II. Territorial. Criminal laws undertake to punish
crimes committed within Philippine territory.
The principle of territoriality means that as a rule, penal laws of the
Philippines are enforceable only within its own territory.
Exceptions:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into the Philippines or of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions
5.
security and the law of nations, defined in Title 1 of Book
2 of the R.P.C.
III. Prospective. A penal law cannot make an act
punishable in a manner which it was not punishable
when committed.
Exception: Whenever a new stature dealing with crime establishes
conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given
a retroactive effect.
This exception has no application:
a) Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to
pending actions or existing causes of action
b) Where the offender is a habitual criminal under rule 5 of
Article 62, R.P.C.
Constitutional Limitations on the Power of Congress to Enact
Penal Laws
1. Equal Protection
2. Due Process
3. Non-imposition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment of
Excessive Fines
4. Bill of Attainder
5. Ex Post Facto Law
No person shall be held liable to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Art. III, Sec. 14[1])
 Due process- the right of any person to be given notice
and be heard before he is condemned for an act or
omission defined and punished by law.
o The state as well as the accused is entitled to
due process of law.
o Effect of violation of due process is a void order
or judgement that has no legal and binding
effect, force or efficacy for any purpose.
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. III,
Sec. 22)
 Ex post facto law- a penal law which is given retroactive
application to the prejudice of the accused.
o A law is ex post facto when it makes an act or
omission criminal which when committed was
not yet so.
 Bill of attainder- a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial.
Basic Maxims in Criminal Law
1. Doctrine of Pro Reo- Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict
to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
2. Nullumcirimen, nullumpoena sine lege- there is no crime
when there is no law that defines and punishes it
3. Mens rea- criminal intent
4. Equipoise doctrine- when the evidence of the prosecution
and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation
of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of
the accused
CHAPTER 2. FELONIES
Felonies- acts and omissions punishable by the R.P.C
Offense- crimes punished by special penal laws
Crime- general term
Elements of felonies
1. There must be an act or omission
2. The act or omission must be punishable by the R.P.C
 3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means
of dolo or culpa People v. Gona: Defendant went out of the house with the
intention of assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening,
Act- any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the defendant mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted upon him a
external world mortal wound with a bolo. In this case, the defendant is criminally
liable for the death of Mapudul.
Omission- failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to
do b. Aberratio ictus- there is a mistake in the blow
 The omission must be punishable by law.
People v. Mabugat: where the accused, having discharged his
Classification of felonies firearm at Juana Buralo but because of lack of precision, hit and
1. Intentional felonies seriously wounded Perfecta Buralo, it was held that the accused
2. Culpable felonies was liable for the injury caused to the latter.

Intentional felonies Culpable felonies c. Praeter intentionem- the injurious result is greater than
Act or omission of the Act or omission of the that intended
offender is malicious offender is nor malicious
People v. Cagoco: where the accused, without the intent to kill,
Imprudence- deficiency of action; lack of skill struck the victim with his fist on the back part of the head from
Negligence- deficiency of perception; lack of foresight behind, causing the victim to fall down with his head hitting the
asphalt pavement and resulting in the fracture of his head, it was
Requisites of dolo or malice held that the accused was liable for the death of the victim,
(1) FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do the act although he had no intent to kill said victim.
(2) INTELLIGENCE while doing the act or omitting to do the
act In order that a person may be held criminally liable for a felony
(3) INTENT while doing the act or omitting to do the act different from that which he intended to commit, the following
requisites must be present:
Mistake of fact a. That an intentional felony has been committed
 While ignorance of the law excuses no one from b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct,
compliance therewith, ignorance or mistake of fact natural and logical consequence of the felony committed
relieves the accused from criminal liability by the offender

Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been
as the accused believed them to be
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful
3. The mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the
part of the accused
Example cases: U.S. v. Ah Chong (mistake of fact) and U.S. v.
Oanis (not mistake of fact)
Requisites of culpa or fault
(1) FREEDOM while doing an act or omitting to do the act
(2) INTELLIGENCE while doing an act or omitting to do the
act
(3) IMPRUDENT, NEGLIGENT or LACKS FORESIGHT or
SKILL while doing the act or omitting to do the act
Proximate cause- cause which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when:
a) There is an active force that intervened between the
felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active
force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused
b) The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
victim
Impossible crime- the acts performed would have been a crime
against persons or property but which is not accomplished
because of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.

 The 3rd class of crimes are those defined and penalized
by special laws which include crimes punished by
municipal or city ordinances
Mala in se- acts or omission which are inherently evil (ex. Theft,
rape, homicide)
Mala prohibita- acts which are made evil because there is a law
prohibiting the same (ex. Illegal possession of firearms)
Requisites of impossible crime:
1. The act performed would be an offense against persons
or property
2. The act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that
the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4. The act performed should not constitute a violation of
another provision

Mala in se Mala prohibita Stages of Execution

Serious in their effects on
society as to call for almost
unanimous condemnation of
its members
Intent governs
Felonies defined and
penalized by the R.P.C.
Under paragraph 1, Article 4, a person committing a felony is still
criminally liable even if—
Violations of mere rules of
convenience designed to
secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of
society
Has the law been violated?
Acts made criminal by special
laws
1. Consummated- when all elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present
2. Frustrated- when offender performs all acts of execution
which would produce the felony but do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
3. Attempted- when offender commences the commission
of a felony and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance

a. Error in personae- there is a mistake in identity

Elements for attempted felony
1. Offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to
cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance
Overt act- are external acts which if continued will logically result
in a felony
 In attempted felony, the offender never passes the
subjective phase of the offense.
 Subjective phase- portion of the acts constituting the
crime, starting from the point where the offender begins
the commission of the crime to that point where he has
still control over his acts
Elements for frustrated felony
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
Classification of felonies as to severity
1. Grave felonies- penalized by capital punishment or
afflictive penalties in any of its period
2. Less grave felonies- punished with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional
3. Light felonies- punished with arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200
Conspiracy- when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
 Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except when the law
specifically provides a penalty therefore.
The R.P.C specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in:
 Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
 Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat rebellion or
insurrection
 Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
Requisites of conspiracy
1. That two or more persons come to an agreement
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a
felony
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon
The R.P.C specially provides a penalty for mere proposal in:
 Art. 115. Proposal to commit treason
 Art. 136. Proposal to commit coup d’etat rebellion or
insurrection
Requisites of proposal
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or
persons
Multiple offenders
Recidivism [Art. 14, par 9] (generic aggravating circumstance)
 Recidivist- one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
shall have been previously convicted by the final
judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of
the R.P.C.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgement of
another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced
in the same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
 No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an
offense committed before the offense involved in the
prior conviction.
o People v. Baldera: The accused was convicted
of robbery with homicide committed on
December 23, 1947. He was previously
convicted of theft committed on December 30,
1947.
Held: The accused was not a recidivist.
A judgement in a criminal case becomes final when:
1) After the lapse of the period for perfecting appeal
2) When the sentence has been partially or totally served
3) The accused has waived in writing his right to appeal
4) The accused has applied for probation
Habituality (Reiteracion) [Art. 14, par 10] (generic aggravating
circumstance)
 Reiteracion - that the offender has been previously
punished for an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter a penalty.
Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense
to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or
for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
 The second requisite present: (1) when the penalty
provided by law for the previous offense is equal to that
for the new offense; or (2) when the penalty provided by
law for the previous offense is greater; or (3) when the
accused served at least two sentences, even if the
penalties provided by law for the crimes are lighter.
RECIDIVISM REITERACION
Previous
Service of
1. Antecedent conviction by
sentence
final judgement
Need not be a
Under the same
2. Offenses felony nor under
Title of the RPC
the same Title
Prior crime must
No requirement have been
as to penalty penalized with an
3. Penalty
imposed in the equal or two or
prior conviction more crimes was
lighter penalty
Quasi-recidivism [Art. 160]
 Quasi-recidivism (extraordinary aggravating
circumstance)- any person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted final judgement, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
o People v. Durante: Defendant, while serving
sentence Bilibid for one crime, struck and
stabbed the foreman of the brigade of
prisoners. Under Art. 160 of the Code, he shall
be punished with the maximum period of the
 penalty prescribed by the law for the new  Abduction as a necessary means for committing rape
felony.
Special complex crime- crimes which in the eyes of the law are
Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency [Art. 62, par 5] treated as single indivisible offenses although in reality are made
up of more than one crime.
 Habitual Delinquency (extraordinary aggravating Examples:
circumstance)- when a person, within a period of ten 1. Art. 294. Robbery with homicide, robbery with rape,
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the robbery with mutilation, robbery with serious physical
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, injuries
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of 2. Art. 320. Arson with homicide
any said crimes a third time or oftener. 3. Art. 267. Kidnapping with homicide, kidnapping with rape,
kidnapping with serious physical injuries
HABITUAL 4. Art. 266-A. Rape with homicide
RECIDIVISM
DELINQUENCY
1. Convictions Two are enough Three are required Continued crime- a single crime, consisting of series of acts but
Falsification, all arising from one criminal resolution.
Must be both robbery, estafa,
2. Crimes Examples:
under the same theft, serious and
covered 1. A thief who takes from the yard of a house two game
Title of the Code less serious
physical injuries roosters belonging to two different persons commits only
None as no time one crime, for the reason that there is a unity of thought
Prescribes after 10 in the criminal purpose of the offender.
limit given by
years between the 2. A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for his
3. Prescription law between 1st
2nd and 3rd personal use several amounts collected by him from
and 2nd
convictions different persons.
convictions
Generic; can be
offset by Special
4. Nature ordinary circumstance; CHAPTER 3. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL
mitigating cannot be offset LIABILITY
circumstance
Entails additional Justifying circumstances- those where the act of a person is
Increase is to penalty which said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
5. Penalty the maximum increases with the not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and
period number of civil liability.
convictions
Par. 1. Self-defense.
Complex crime- when a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary mean to Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body
committing the other. of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, that is, those rights
the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
Two kinds of complex crime
1. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less Requisites of self-defense
grave felonies (Compound crime) 1) Unlawful aggression
2. When an offense is a necessary means for committing 2) Reasonable necessity of the means employs to prevent
the other (Complex crime proper) ore repel it
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
Requisites of compound crime: defending himself
1. Only a single act is performed by the offender
2. The single act produces (1) 2 or more grave felonies, or 2 types of unlawful aggression
(2) one or more grave and one or more less grave 1. Actual- the danger must be present
felonies, or (3) two or more less grave felonies 2. Imminent- the danger is on the point of happening

Examples of compound crime: Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights

 The single act of Pama in firing a shot, the same bullet 1. Attempt to rape a woman- defense of right to chastity
causing the death of two persons who were standing on 2. Defense of property
the same line of direction of the bullet 3. Defense of home
 The stabbing and killing of the victim which caused
likewise the death of the fetus  A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded
by an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful
Requisites of complex crime proper: aggression.
1. At least two offenses are committed
2. One or some of the offenses must be necessary to Test of reasonableness
commit the other The means employed depends upon:
3. Both or all offenses must be punished under the same 1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by aggressor
statute 2. Aggressor’s physical condition, character, size, and other
circumstances
Examples of complex crime proper: 3. And those of the person defending himself
4. The place and occasion of the assault
 Falsification of a public document by an accountable
officer is an offense which is necessary to commit
Par. 2. Defense of relatives
malversation, which is another offense.
 Simple seduction by means of usurpation of official
Relatives that can be defended
functions.
1. Spouse
 2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sister, or
relatives by affinity in the same degree
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
Requisites of defense of relatives:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it
3. In the case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein
Par. 3. Defense of stranger
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive
Example: A was able to deprive B, a constabulary lieutenant, of his
pistol during the fray. B ordered C, a constabulary soldier under his
command, to search A for the pistol. When C was about to
approach A to search him, the latter stepped back and shot at C
who was able to avoid the shot. When A was about to fire again at
C, D, another constabulary soldier, fired at A with his rifle which
killed him. D was justified in killing A, having acted in defense of
stranger.
Par. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury.
Requisites:
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. The injury feared be greater that that done to avoid it
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
Example: A person was driving his car on a narrow road with due
diligence and care when suddenly he saw a six by six truck in front
of his car. If he would swerve it to the right he would kill a
passerby. He was forced to choose between losing his life in the
precipice or sacrificing the life of an innocent bystander. He chose
the latter, swerved hi car to the right, ran over and killed a
passerby.
 There is civil liability under this paragraph but the civil
liability is borne by the persons benefited.
Par. 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. That 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
Par. 6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful
Exempting circumstances- those grounds for exemption from
punishment because there is a wanting in the agent of the crime
any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
1. Insanity and Imbecility
2. Minority
3. Accident
4. Irresistible Force
5. Uncontrollable Fear
6. Insuperable or Lawful Cause
 In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed
but no criminal liability arises.
Par. 1- An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval
Basis: complete absence of intelligence
Imbecile- one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment
and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime / while
advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years old.
 Imbecile is exempt in ALL cases
 Insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted
during lucid interval
Insanity- exists when there is complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the act, complete absence of the power to discern,
or that there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will.
 Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough,
especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of
his acts. (Mitigating circumstance)
 When the imbecile or 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 w/o first obtaining the
permission of the court.
 To prove insanity, circumstantial evidence, if clear and
convincing, will suffice.
Evidence of insanity
 If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its
nature, the presumption of its continuance does not
arise.
When defense of insanity is not credible.
1) People v. Renegado: Appellant himself testified that he
was acting very sanely that Monday morning, as shown
by the fact that he went to the canteen in a jovial mood
“singing, whistling, and tossing a coin in his hand”; he
saw persons inside the canteen; he noticed the arrival of
Lira who banged his folders on the table, elbowed him,
and said in a loud voice: “ano ka”; he saw Lira put his
right hand inside his pocket and with the other hand
pushed a chair towards him; he became “confused”
because he remembered that Lira threatened to kill him if
he would see him again; at this point “he lost his senses”
and regained it when he heard the voice of Mrs. Tan
saying: “Loreto, don’t do that;” then he found out he
wounded Lira. If appellant was able to recall those
incidents, we cannot understand why his memory stood
still at that very crucial moment when he stabbed Lira to
return at the snap of the finger as it were, after he
accomplished the act of stabbing his victim.
2) People v. Ambal: The accused knew that his wife was
dead because he was informed of her death. He said that
his wide quarreled with him. She was irritable. He
remembered that week before the incident he got wet
while plowing. He fell asleep without changing his
clothes. He immediately surrendered after the incident.
He remembered that he rode on a tricycle. During his
confinement in jail, he mopped the floor and cooked food
for his fellow prisoners. Sometimes, he worked in the
town plaza or was sent unescorted to buy food in the
market.
3) People v. Magallano: Government psychiatric doctors ho
had closely observed the accused for a month and a half
 and found him in good contact with his environment and
that he did not manifest any odd behavior for in fact he
could relate the circumstances that led to his
confinement. He exhibited remorse for killing the victim,
his wife, he voluntarily surrendered to the police
headquarters where he executed a statement confessing
his misdeed. He was coherent and intelligent. Before the
killing, he was working for a living through fishing three
times a week and he himself fixed prices for his catch.
The presumption of sanity has not been overcome.
4) People v. Puno: The accused was afflicted with
“schizophrenic reaction” but knew what he was doing; he
has psychosis, a slight destruction of the ego; in spite of
his “schizophrenic reaction,” his symptoms were “not
socially incapacitating” and he could adjust to his
environment. He could distinguish between right and
wrong. He had no delusions and he was not mentally
deficient. The accused was not legally insane when he
killed the hapless and helpless victim.
5) People v. Aquino: The mental illness of the accused was
described as “organic mental disorder with psychosis”
but the doctor said that a person suffering from insanity
may know that what he is doing is wrong. He also
observed that the mental illness of the accused came on
and off. When interviewed upon his admission to the
mental institution, he recalled having taken 120 cc of
cough syrup and consumed about three sticks of
marijuana before the commission of the crime, an
admission confirming his prior extrajudicial confession.
The presence of his reasoning faculties, articulate
aforesaid matters, sufficiently discount any intimation of
the insanity of the accused when he committed the
dastardly felonies.
Instances of Insanity
 Dementia praecox- insanity
 Schizophrenia- insanity
 Kleptomania- insanity only when proven that the impulse
to steal was irresistible
 Epilepsy- insanity
 Feeblemindedness- no imbecility/insanity
 Pedophilia- not insanity
 Amnesia- not insanity
Other cases of lack of intelligence
1. Committing a crime while in a dream
 People v. Taneo: One who, is 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.
 People v. Gimena: Somnambulism or
sleepwalking, where the acts of the person
afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea
of insanity and must be clearly proven.
a. Hypnotism
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant
malaria
 People v. Lacena: One who was suffering from
malignant malaria when she wounded her
husband who died as a consequence is not
criminally liable, because such illness affects
the nervous system and causes among others
such complication as acute melancholia and
insanity at times.
Par. 2- A person under 15 years of age.
Basis: complete absence of intelligence
 The child shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subject to an
intervention program as provided under Section
20 of the same law.
Par. 3- A person over 15 years of age and under 18, 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.
Basis: complete absence of intelligence
 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.
Periods of criminal responsibility
1) Age of absolute responsibility- 15 years and below
2) Age of conditional responsibility- 15 years and 1 day to 18
years
3) Age of full responsibility- 18 years or over to 70
4) Age of mitigated responsibility- 15 years and 1 day to 18
years, the offender acting with discernment; over 70.
 Discernment- the capacity pf 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.
Discernment may be shown by:
1) Manner of committing the crime
2) Conduct of offender after its commission
Determination of Age
1) Original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth
2) Similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificates and school records or any pertinent document
that shows the date of birth of the child
3) Testimony of the child, member of the family related to
the child by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify
 Allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information is
sufficient allegation of discernment as such conveys the
idea that he knew what would be the consequences of
his unlawful act.
Par. 4- Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes and injury by mere accident without fault or intention
of causing it.
Basis: lack of negligence and intent
Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
 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.
People v. Galacgac: While defending himself against unjustified
assault upon his person made by his assailant, appellant Galacgac
fired his revolver at random, wounding to innocent persons.
Held: The discharge of a firearm in such a thickly
populated place in the City of Manila being prohibited and
penalized by Article 155 of the R.P.C., appellant Galacgac was not
performing a lawful act when he accidentally hit and wounded
Marina Ramos and Alfonso Ramos. Hence, the exempting
circumstance provided for in Article 12, par 4, of the R.P.C., cannot
be properly invoked by appellant.

U.S. v. Tañedo
Facts: The accused while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a
shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken recoiled and struck the
tenant who was a relative of the accused. The man who was
injured died.
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in
the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.
Case of negligence, not accident.
People v. Nocum: As the 2 persons fighting paid him no attention,
the defendant drew a gun and shot twice in the air. The bout
continued, however, so he fired another shot at the ground, but
unfortunately the bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, an
innocent bystander, who died thereafter.
Held: The mishap should be classed as homicide through
reckless imprudence. It is apparent the defendant willfully
discharged his gun, without taking the precautions demanded by
the circumstances that the district was populated, and the
likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of
the thoroughfare.
When claim of accident not appreciated
1) Repeated blows negate claim of wounding by mere
accident
2) Accidental shooting is negated by threatening words
preceding it and still aiming the gun at the prostate body
of the victim, instead immediately helping him.
3) People v. Samson: Husband and wife had an altercation.
The deceased husband got a carbine and holding it by
the muzzle raised it above his right shoulder in an
attempt to strike accused wife. She side-stepped and
grappled him for the possession of the gun and in the
scuffle the gun went off, the bullet hitting her husband on
the neck. Held: It was difficult, if not well-nigh impossible,
for her who was frail and shorter than her husband, who
was robust and taller, to have succeeded in taking hold
of the carbine, for if her husband was to strike her with
the butt of the carbine and he side-stepped, he would not
have continued to hold the carbine in a raised position,
Actual test during the trial showed that the carbine was
not defective and could not fire without pressing the
trigger. The absence of any powder burns at the
entrance of the wound in the body of the deceased is
convincing proof that he was shot from a distance, and
not with the muzzle of the gun almost resting on his
shoulder or the back of the neck.
Par. 5- Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
2. That the physical force must be irresistible
3. That the physical force must come from a third person
Example:
In the case of U.S. v. Caballeros, et al., it appears that
Baculi, one of the accused who was not a member of the band
which murdered some American school-teachers, was in a
plantation gathering bananas. Upon hearing the shooting, he ran.
However, Baculi was seen by the leaders of the band who called
him, and striking him with the butts of their guns, they compelled
him to bury the bodies.
Held: Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for
concealing the body of the crime of murder committed by the band,
because Baculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
Par. 6- Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater
than or at least equal to, that which he is required to
commit
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it
For uncontrollable fear to be invoked successfully, the ff. requisites
must occur:
(a) Existence of an uncontrollable fear
(b) The fear must be real and imminent
(c) The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
that committed
U.S. v. Exaltacion: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura
Tanchino were compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance
to the Katipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the government
by force of arms. In this case, accused cannot be held criminally
liable for rebellion, because they joined the rebels under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
But if a had threatened to burn the house of B should the latter not
kill his father, and B killed his father for fear that A might burn his
house, B is not exempt from criminal liability for the reason that the
evil with which he was threatened was much less than that of
killing his father.
 Duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and
should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
 A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
o People v. Parulan: Where the accused, who
testified that he was intimidated into committing
the crime, had several opportunities of leaving
the gang which had decided to kidnap the
victim, his theory that he acted under
intimidation if untenable.
o People v. Vargas and Kamatoy: Where the
accused testified that he joined the band
because he was threatened by leader thereof,
but it appears that the leader was armed with a
revolver only, while the accused was armed
with a rifle, so that he could have resisted said
leader, it was held that the accused did not act
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an equal or greater injury.
 In the eyes of the law, nothing will excuse that act of
joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate death.
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.
Par. 7- Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Basis: no intent
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
Examples of lawful cause:
  Priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed 2. Defense of relatives
to him 3. Defense of stranger
 No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary 4. State of necessity
detention 5. Performance of duty
 Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and 6. Obedience to order of superior
extreme debility, leaving child to die – not liable for 7. Minority above 15 but below 18 years of age
infanticide 8. Causing injury by mere accident
9. Uncontrollable fear
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstance:
Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of
Exempting Justifying stranger
Circumstance Circumstance  What is absent is either one or both of the two last
Existence There is a crime but There is no crime requisites.
of a crime there is no criminal because the act is  Privileged mitigating circumstance
act, the actor is justified
exempted from liability Example: The deceased was about to set on fire the house of the
of his act accused, where she was sleeping together with her two children.
Absolutory causes- are those where the act committed is a crime They grappled and the accused boloed to death the deceased.
but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty There was unlawful aggression consisting in trying to set on fire
imposed. the house of the accused. There was the element of danger to the
occupants of the house. But having already driven the aggressor
Other examples of absolutory causes: out of the house, who was prostate on the ground, the accused
a) Art 6 – spontaneous desistance should not have persisted in wounding her no less than 14 times.
b) Art 20 – accessories exempt from criminal liability There is, therefore, absence of one circumstance to justify the
c) Art 19 par 1 – profiting one’s self or assisting offenders to act—reasonable necessity of killing the aggressor.
profit by the effects of the crime
Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT 18 years of age.
Instigator practically induces The ways and means are  Offender over 15 and under 18 years old acted with
the would-be accused into resorted to for the purpose of discernment
the commission of the trapping and capturing the
offense and himself becomes lawbreaker in the execution of Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
co-principal his criminal plan.  A person is performing a lawful act and he causes injury
Accused will be acquitted NOT a bar to accused’s to another by mere accident.
prosecutions and conviction  Felony by negligence or imprudence
Absolutory cause NOT an absolutory cause
Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
Mitigating circumstance- those which, if present in the  If only one of the requisites are present, there is only
commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from mitigating circumstance
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Par. 2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years
Classes of mitigating circumstance Basis: diminution of intelligence
1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance
2. Privileged mitigating circumstance Par. 3. That the offender has no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed
Privileged Ordinary Basis: Diminution of intent
Mitigating Mitigating
Offset by any Cannot be offset Can be offset by a Par. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
aggravating by any aggravating generic offended party immediately preceded the act
circumstance circumstance aggravating
circumstance Provocation- any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
Effect on the Has the effect of If not offset, has offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.
penalty imposing the the effect of
penalty by 1 or 2 imposing the Requisites:
degrees than that penalty in the 1. The provocation must be sufficient
provided by law minimum period 2. It must originate from the offended party
3. The provocation must be immediate to the act
Kinds Minority, Those
Incomplete self- circumstances
Example: When the deceased abused and ill-treated the accused
defense, 2 or more enumerated in
by kicking and cursing the latter, the accused who killed him
mitigating paragraph 1 to 10
circumstances of Art. 13 committed the crime with this mitigating circumstance
without any  Provocation must originate from the offended party.
aggravating
circumstance Par. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of
a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
Par 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all the ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
Requisites:
Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give 1. That there be a grave offense done to one committing
place to mitigation the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
1. Self-defense
relatives by affinity within the same degrees
 2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave
offense. A lapse of time is allowed between the
vindication and the doing of the grave offense

PROVOCATION
Made directly to the person
committing the felony
Cause that brought about the
provocation need not be a
grave offense
It is necessary that
immediately preceded the act
VINDICATION
Grave offense may be
committed also against the
offender’s relatives mentioned
by the law
Offender must have done a
grave offense
Admits of an interval of time
between the grave offense
done by the offended party
and the commission of the
crime by the accused

Par. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as

naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation

Requisites:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity