Paragraph 4 : any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury

by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

1. A preson is performing a lawful act

2. With due care
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

Us v tañedo
Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting the 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.

Xxxx
A chauffer driving – on the proper side of the road- with due diligence- suddenly and unexpectedly saw-
Not physically possible to avoid hitting the pedestrian.

Case of negligence-
2 persons fighting paid him no attention- defendant drew .45 pistol- shot twice in the air— bout
continued— fired another shot at the ground BUT the bullet ricocheted and hit eugenio francisco, an
innocent bystander who later died.

Held: homicide through reckless imprudence. Defendant wilfully discharged his gun, without taking the
precautions demanded by the circumstances that the district was – populated – and the likelihood of his
bullet would glance over the hard pavement of the thoroughfare.

Accident
- Is a fortuitive circumstance, event or happening, an event happening without or partly any
human agency
- An event which under the circumstance is UNUSUAL or UNEXPECTED by the person to whom it
happens.
- No motive to injure (no fault or intention)
Negligence
- Is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person
- That degree of Care, Precaution, and Vigilance
- Which circumstances justly demanded without which such other person suffers injury.

Accident and Negligence are contradictory. One cannot exist with the other.

Accident cannot be appreciated:

-Repeated blows
-preceded by threatening words
-altercation- grappling for the possession of the gun- gun went off- hitting B in the neck. Use ACTUAL
TEST.
LACK OF NEGLIGENCE AND INTENT

1
Par. 5: Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force

Person compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

1. Compulsion by means of Physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person

- Must produce such an effect upon the individual

- Reduces him to mere instrument
- In spite of resistance, it compels his members to act and his mind to obey
- Force cannot consist in anything which springs from the man himself
- A force which acts upon him from the outside and by a third person

US V CABALLEROS
Baculi running, 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: NOT criminally liable as accessory for concealing the body of the crime (art19) of murder
committed by band bec Baculi ACTED UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.

Pretension that he was threatened is not credible where he himself is armed with a rifle. (People v Sarip)
Passion and Obfuscation cannot be irresistible force.

Duress
Force
Fear
Intimidation
Basis: COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM

Par. 6: Any Person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.

Compelled by another but the compulsion is by the means of INTIMIDATION or THREAT.

NOT force or violence.
1. Threat which causes fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required
to commit.
2. Promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would have succumbed to
it.
US V EXALTACION
Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchico were COMPELLED UNDER FEAR OF DEATH to swear
allegiance to the katipunan to overthrow the government.
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.

2
Note: evil or injury must be greater or equal to. Burning house < Killing his father

Duress as a valid defense must be – REAL, IMMINENT, or REASONABLE FEAR for one’s life or limb.
NOT speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
- Accused must NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY for escape or self-defense.
- Threat or future injury IS NOT ENOUGH
- The participation of golfeo in torturing and liquidation of Arreza cannot in any way justify that
he acted under uncontrollable fear of being punished by his superiors. First, golfeo was armed
with an automatic carbine which could have protected himself from his superiors. Second, the
secluded place was far from where his superiors are.
-
- People v Regala – acquitted for uncontrollable fear
a. Hukbalabaps were ruthless killers and were then in a mood to inflict extreme and summary
punishment for disobedience to the command.
b. Place was isolated
c. Escape was at least risky
d. Protection by lawful authorities was out of reach
- In TREASON, nothing will excuse in the act of joining the enemy BUT the fear of immediate
death. (People v Bagalawis) same as exaltacion case.
- People v Moreno – cannot be acquitted
a. If only evidence is the testimony f the defendant
b. You have to comply orders, otherwise you have to come along with us
c. Threat is not of such serious character and imminence as to create in the mind of the
defendant an uncontrollable fear greater or equal evil or injury if will not comply the orders
- MERE fear, in ABSENCE of PROOF OF ACTUAL PHYSICAL or MORAL COMPULSION TO ACT is NOT
SUFFICIENT to exempt criminal liability.
- Actus me invito non est meus actus

Irresistible force
- Uses VIOLENCE or PHYSICAL FORCE to compel another person to commit a crime
Uncontrollable fear
- Employs INTIMIDATION or THEEAT in compelling another to commit a crime

BASIS: COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM

Par. 7: Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause

1. Act is required by law to be done.

2. Person fails to perform such act
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

- The priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to know by reason of
the confession made to him in his professional capacity.
- The distance which required the delivery of detained for three days was an insuperable cause
for there are no other means of transportation.

3
 - Mother who was overcome by SEVERE DIZZINESS and EXTREME DEBILITY left the child in the
thicket where the said child died. It was physically impossible for her to take home.
Basis: ACTS WITHOUT INTENT
Absolutory causes
Those where the ACT COMMITTED is a CRIME but for REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND
SENTIMENT there is NO PENALTY imposed.

1. ARTICLE 6 SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE

2. ART 20. ACCESSORIES except par 1 or art 19 (profiting themselves for assisting)
3. ART 124. Last par. Insanity requiring compulsory confinement
4. Art 247. par 1 and 2 death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
— Husband surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person
5. ART 289 Par 3 on trespassing to dwelling
6. ART 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability
7. ART 344. Par 4 marriage to rapist, seductionist, abductors shall extinguish penalty imposed.

INSTIGATION – an ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

- Agent Induced the accused to look for opium
- Agent went to accused three times to convince the latter
- Accused made efforts to look for one
- Gave it to the agent
- Went back with an arrest warrant
- Accused not criminally liable. HE WAS INSTIGATED TO COMMIT A CRIME.

BUT agent induced the accused to sell it to him, and accused sold it to him. Accused then liable for illegal
possession of opium. Bec mere possession is a violation of the lae within itself.

BASIS: SOUND PUBLIC POLICY – direct his acquittal

ENTRAPMENT – NOT an absolutory cause

Collector of customs received an info
- Promised the accused to remove all difficulties in the way
- A secret serviceman pretended to smooth the way for its introduction
- Accused started to land the opium
- Agents of law seized the drug snd the accused prosecuted.
- IT WAS THE ACCUSED WHO PLANNED ITS IMPORTATION
- Agent only pretended to have an understanding with the customs.

If the accused did not yet ordered the drug but because on THE STRENGTH OF THE ASSURANCE OF
CUSTOMS, he later ordered said opium. This is instigation. He was instigated to import said drug. Art 192

- Mere deception of the detective will not shield the defendant, if the offense was committed by
him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective.
- The fact that the agent acts as a supposed confederate of the thief is no defense on the latter
for the prosecution for larceny, PROVIDED THAT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS FORMED by the
accused INDEPENDENTLY OF SUCH AGENT.