Justifying Circumstances

Obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose

Article 11(6). Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.

Elements Instances where the Instances where the

element was attendant element was not
considered to be attendant

1. That an order has been 1. When the accused
issued by a superior.
2. That such order must
be for some lawful
purpose.
3. That the means used
by subordinate to carry
out said order is lawful.
1. The court ordered that
acted upon orders of the convict should be
superior officers, which executed on a certain
he, as military date. The executioner
subordinate, could not put him to death on a
question, and obeyed day earlier than the
the orders in good date fixed by the court.
faith, without being 2. The execution of the
aware of their illegality, convict, although by
without any fault or virtue if a lawful order of
negligence on his part, the court, was carried
he is not liable out against the
because he had no provision of Article 82.
criminal intent and he The executioner is
as not negligent. guilty of murder.
(People v. Beronilla, 3. One who prepared a
96 Phil. 566) falsified document with
full knowledge of its
falsity is not excused
even if he merely acted
in obedience to the
instruction of his
superior, because the
instruction was not for a
lawful purpose. (People
v. Barroga. 54 Phil.
247)
4. 4. A soldier who, in
obedience to the order
of his sergeant, tortured
to death the deceased
for bringing a kind of
fish different that he
had been asked to
 furnish a constabulary
detachment, is
criminally liable.
Obedience to an order
of a superior is justified
only when the order is
for some lawful
purpose. The order to
torture the deceased
was illegal, and the
accused was not bound
to obey it. (People v.
Margen, et al., 85 Phil.
839)

Exempting Circumstances

Imbecility or Insanity

Article 12(1). An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval.

Elements Instances where the Instances where the

element was attendant element was not
considered to be attendant

1. The imbecile is 1. One who, while 1. Where the accused

deprived completely of sleeping, suddenly got claimed that he was an
reason or discernment up, got a bolo, and upon epileptic but it was not
and freedom of the will meeting his wife who shown that he was
at the time of tried to stop him, under the influence of
committing the crime. wounded her and also an epileptic fit when he
2. The insane must not attacked other person, committed the offense,
act during a lucid is not criminally liable, it he is not exempt from
interval. appearing that the act criminal liability.
3. To constitute insanity, was committed while in (People v. Mancao and
there must be a a dream. (People v. Aguilar, 9 Phil. 887)
complete deprivation of Taneo, 58 Phil. 255)The 2. Feeblemindedness is
intelligence or act was done without not exempting,
reasoning, or total criminal intent because the offender
deprivation of the 2. The wife of the accused could distinguish right
freedom of the will. and his cousin testified from wrong. An
that the accused had imbecile or insane
 been more or less
continuously out of his
mind for many years.
The assistant district 3. The accused was
health officer who, by
order of the court,
examined the accused
found that the accused
was a violent maniac.
The physician
expressed the opinion
that the accused was
probably insane when
he killed the deceased.
The total lack of motive
on the part of the
accused to kill the
deceased bears out the
assumption that the
former was insane.
(People v. Bascos,
supra)
3. 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.
(People v. Bonoan, 64
Phil. 87)
4. The somnambulist falls
under the rule that a
person is not criminally
liable if his acts are not
voluntary. (U.S. v.
Odicta, 4 Phil. 309)
5. When a person is
suffering from a form of
psychosis, a type of
dementia praecox,
homicidal attack is
common, because of
delusions that he is
being interfered with
sexually, or that his
cannot distinguish right
from wrong. (People v.
Formigones, supra)
afflicted with
“schizophrenic
reaction” but knew
what he was doing; he
had 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.
(People v. Puno, No. L-
33211, June 29, 1981,
105 SCRA 151, 156,
159)
 property is being taken.
During the period of
excitement, such person
has no control whatever
of his acts. (People v.
Bonoan, supra)

Minority

Article 12(2). A person under fifteen years of age.

Elements Instances where the Instances where the

element was attendant element was not
considered to be attendant

1. Fifteen years and n/a n/a

below

Minority

Article 12(3). A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.

Elements Instances where the Instances where the

element was attendant element was not
considered to be attendant

1. 15 years and one day 1. When the minor in the
2. Eighteen years and
below
3. Must not act with
discernment
1. When the minor
commission of the committed the crime
crime did not know so during nighttime to
well the consequences avoid detection or took
of his wrongful act, a the loot to another town
manifestation of the to avoid discovery, he
complete absence of manifested
intelligence, is discernment. (People v.
exempted from Magsino, G.R. No.
criminal liability. 40176, May 3, 1934)
2. Rodel, who was 16
years old, punched the
body and the head of
the victim with a brass
knuckle (llave inglesa)
wrapped around his
right fist. Raymund then
tied a handkerchief
around the victim’s
neck, fastened a dog
chain to the ends of the
said handkerchief and,
with the aid of
Raymund and Rodel,
hoisted the victim’s
body to and hanged it
from a nearby tree.
Rodel, together with his
cohorts, warned
Jovencio not to reveal
their hideous act to
anyone; otherwise, they
would kill him. Rodel
knew, therefore, that
killing the victim was a
condemnable act and
should be kept in
secrecy. He fully
appreciated the
consequences of his
unlawful act. (Madali v.
People. G.R. No.
180380, August 4,
2009)