• __
2. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are
mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.
---------------------------------------------------------
“Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when
all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are
not attendant.”
- Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give
place to mitigation, because not all requisites necessary to
justify/exempt the act, are not attendant
INCOMPLETE: JUSTIFICATION
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives and strangers
- SELF DEFENSE
- DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
- DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
RULE: Unlawful aggression should always be present to be
appreciated as mitigating.
RULE: It is an ordinary mitigating circumstance if only unlawful
aggression is present.
RULE: When two of the three requisites are present, it is a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
act which causes damage to another
- RULE: It is justifying only if ALL REQUISITES are present.
- RULE: If any of the last two requisites is absent, there is
only mitigating circumstance.
3. “Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office.”
- RULE: People v. Oanis: Appellants are declared guilty of
murder with mitigating circumstance. SC considered
one of two requisites as constituting the majority.
- RULE: People v. Oanis: There is, however, a mitigating
circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete
justifying circumstance defined in article 11, No. 5, of
the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal
provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he
acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office. There are two requisites in order that
the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: ( a)
that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or
in the lawful exercise of a right; and ( b) that the injury
or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office. In the instance case,
only the first requisite is present - appellants have
acted in the performance of a duty. The second
requisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is
not the necessary consequence of a due performance
of their duty.
4. “Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.”
- RULE: People v. Bernal (G.R. No. L-4409. July 14, 1952):
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF HAVING ACTED IN
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR
DESPITE . — R, having fired at the victim following his
sergeant’s order, which was obviously illegal and
unwarranted, is liable for the killing, although he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of having
acted "in obedience to an order issued by a superior."
- REQUISITES:
- REQUISITE 1: LAWFUL PURPOSES;
- REQUISITE 2: ACT IN OBEDIENCE. Only requisite
two were present. SC considered it as
mitigating.
INCOMPLETE: EXEMPTION
1. (mental condition of a person is indivisible, thus it cannot fall
under mitigating)
2. MINORITY ABOVE 15 BUT BELOW 18 YEARS OF AGE (RA 9344)
- RULE: Age of mitigated responsibility
- 15 and 1 day to 18, the offender acting with
discernment;
3. “Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.”
- Accident
- RULE: If the “accident” is attended with fault (culpa) (cf.
fourth element of accident) and without due care
(second element), then the act becomes punishable
under art. 365.
- Article 365. Imprudence and negligence. -
Any person who, by reckless imprudence,