Article 12 These paragraphs 2 and 3 are already obsolete. The case at point is Robert Sierra v. People GR no.

182941 July 3, 2009 RA 9344 was intended to protect the rights of a child in conflict with law or a child at risk by providing assistance that would ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well being What does paragraph 1 provide? -A person under 9 years of age, is exempt from liability wich is amended by ra 9344 (childunder 15 years of age). If you fall under section 6 of paragraph 1, this child is exempt from criminal liability regardless of his mental capacity. Age is the determining factor. It drew its changes from the principle of restorative justice. It considers 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives minors of these ages to right theiur wrong through diversion and intervention measures. -section 3 of article 12 provides- there is a range now. If you are within the range, you can still be exempt provided that you acted without discernment. If you acted with discernment, you can be held criminally liable. And be proceeded against art 80 of the RPC. This is already gone. What is important is the term discernment. It was carried over. What is now the version of ra 9344 paragraph 2? There is now a difference in the range except in the term discernment. What is now the distinction? Now, you can now be subjected to appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. -Let continue with our comparison. (old law) Acted without discernment- totally exempt Acted with discernment - suspension of sentence and commitment of youthful offenders. (new law) Section 38 once a child under 18 yrs found guilty That is the term now child in conflict with law (Resolution refer to the Section 38) Suppose I am 15 years and two months, where will I fall? How do you compute the age? The exception to the exception, how do you compute the age? Those who are above 15 years of age regardless to how many days, will be considered to paragraph

2. The basis is the election case of garvida v sales gr no. 124893. An en banc decision penned by J. puno. This is 1987, something to do with coputation of age. The qualification of candidate, was an issue. He was over 21 years of age but not yet 22. What do you mean by not more than 21 years of age? How did the SC settle that? They have rendered the decision by saying, the phrase no t more than 21 means not more than 21 years, not beyond 21 years. It means 21, 365 days cycles. Not more than 21 years is not equivalent to less than 22 years old. By analogy, if you are 15 years and 30 seconds? You fall aunder the second paragraph. Your age is already more than 15 years of age. Computation is 365 days equal one year. Second issue is the issue on discernment. What do you mean by discernment? Let us consult the definition on the definition on implementing rules and regulations and jurisprudence. The implementing rules and regulations rule 34 (a) discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong and its consequence.. Let us look at the case people v bernadr gr 123120. Second division by j. callejo. Definition of discernment the discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking in to consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in this case. The very appearance, attitude, comportment, behavior of a minor. Not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during trial. How discernment is determined refer to IRR People vs jacinto gr 182239 -in the present case we agree with the CA, that choosing a dark place to perpetrate the crime indicative of the mental capacity to fully understand the consequence of his unlawful action. There is favorite question in my exam Distinguish discernment from intent. ( I cant follow kay si Sir nag illustrate sa whiteboard) The supreme court had the occasion to answer that. Guevarra vs. ??? Petitioner john Philip guevarrs , 11 years old. They were target shooting a bottle cap with an air rifle. In the course of their game, teodoro was hit by a pellet which caused his unfortunate death. Whether an 11 years be charged with homicide through reckless imprudence.

Here is how the SC described the distinction. -The word "intent" has been defined as (a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent;. . .; the design resolve, or determination with which a person acts.' (46 CJS Intent p. 1103.) It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two. On the other hand, We have defined the term discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of the RPC, in the old case of People vs. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580(1939), in this wise: The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong . . . (Emphasis supplied) p. 583 From the foregoing, it is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence. -minority is in the same level as insanity and imbecility. Does not understand right or wrong even if they have committed such acts with intent. The concept here is formative justice. (Again sir illustrated on the whiteboard) Paragraph 4 Remove fault and intent, what you have is intelligence and knowledge only, then you are exempt. Accident is something that cannot be foreseen. Lack of foresight, contemplates that which can be foreseen. What are the elements of accident. (People v. Susan gr no. 186128) Thus, it was incumbent upon appellant to prove with clear and convincing evidence, the following essential requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident, to wit:

1. She was performing a lawful act; 2. With due care; 3. She caused the injury to her husband by mere accident; 4. Without fault or intention of causing it What is the degree of proof and evidence required? To prove the circumstance she must rely on the strength of her own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if this be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing.

Another principle here is accident is incompatible with selfdefense and unlawful aggression. Those are two mutually excluding circumstances. In self-defense, you are consciously trying to do it. Case (G.R. No. 130489. February 19, 2002) People v Javier: Intent or fault- in their absence constitute accident. Presence of which constitutes self-defense. Paragraph 5 and 6 -what is taken out here? Freedom. There is complete absence of freedom making the act an involuntary one. -an act done by me against my will is not my act What do you mean by compulsion of an irresistible force? -the force contemplated must be so formidable so as to reduce the actor as a mere instrument who acts not only without will but also against his will. The force duress fear and intiidatione must be present imminent and impending,. And of such nature such as to reduce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm. A threat of injury is not enough. Compulsion must be of such character that it gives no means of escape or self-defense in equal combat. -people vs. del Rosario 365 phil rep 292 cited in the case of people versus requina. Dapat no ooportunity for escape and self defense. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear Elements in (people vs. alberto antica(??) gr 178571) To avail of this exempting circumstance. The evidence must establish that the fear must be real and imminent and the fear is greater or equal to the one committed.

For such defense to prosper,, the duress force fear must be present, eminent and impending. Paragraph 7 -this is felony by omission. You did not do an act. Let us say you are a priest. And there you have it in the confessional box. Someone confessed the conspiracy of treason. The priest did not do anything about it. The priest was also prosecuted. What did the priest do? He did not do anything. He is being charged because he did not do anything. What will be his defense? Answer is par 7 of art 12. Because there is such thing as privilege communication. The following persons cannot testify: -a minister or priest cannot without the consent of the person making the confession. What do you mean by insuperable cause? -Physically impossible to perform. Failure to do something basically because it is impedimented by a a cause so difficult that it prevents such commission. Others matter that we should consider in this justifying and exempting circumstances. Let us distinguish justifying circumstance from exempting circumstances. In the justifying, the accused acted in accordance with law, in exempting, not in accordance with law but without intelligence freedom and intent or fault. In justifying, no crime while the latter, there is a crime but no criminal. In justifying, no civil liability except in the state of necessity in art 11 par 4. In exempting, there is civil liability on the part of parents and custodians, except those under art 12 par 4 and 7. HERe is a question in the bar exam: Give 10 exempting circumstances: (unya 7 lang man..) other than those provided in art 12. (the following are additional exempting circumstance other than those provided in art 12) Spontaneous desistance of a person before a crime is committed. The commission of a frustrated or attempted that is not against person or property Accessories are exempt from criminal liability from light felonies Art 20 of the RPC also provides another exempting circumstance. (refer to art 20 of the RPC) Art 247 of the RPC death and physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Persons exempt from criminal liability under art 332 of the RPC

the exempting circumstance of instigation. Instigation must be distinguished from a legitimate police method of arrest which is entrapment. o people vs. nenita legazpi gr 173485 entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate method to capture criminals. Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the person instigating persona nd the accuse dis just lured, there is instigation and no conviction can be held. If the criminal originates in the mind of the accused even if he acted as a decoy of the state, he shall be held liable. Instigation is a trap for the innocent while entrapment is a trap for the criminal.