______________________________________________ One single act cannot be made the basis of more than

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING one mitigating circumstance. Hence, a mitigating

circumstance arising from a single act absorbs all the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY other mitigating circumstances arising from the same
_____________________________________________ act.
Circumstances affecting criminal liability (JEMAA)
1. Justifying circumstances; Basis of mitigating circumstances
2. Exempting circumstances; The basis is diminution (decrease) of either freedom of
3. Mitigating circumstances; action, intelligence, or intent or on the lesser perversity
4. Aggravating circumstances; and of the offender.
5. Alternative circumstances.

Other two circumstances found in the RPC affecting

Circumstances which can mitigate
criminal liability criminal liability (very important!!!)
1. Absolutory cause – has the effect of an exempting 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance;
circumstance as it is predicated on lack of voluntariness. (BAR 1990, 1996)
(no penalty is imposed by reason of public policy) 2. The offender is under 18 or over 70 years old;
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (praeter
Example: In cases of instigation and in case a relative of intentionem); (BAR 2000, 2001)
a principal is charged as an accessory (Art. 332, in 4. Sufficient threat or provocation;
crimes against property) (except an accessory who 5. Vindication of a grave offense; (BAR 1993, 2000,
profits or assists an offender to profit from the effects of 2003)
the crime), he is exempt from criminal liability. 6. Passion or obfuscation;
7. Voluntary surrender; (BAR 1992, 1996, 1997, 1999)
2. Extenuating circumstances – has the effect of 8. Physical defect;
mitigating the criminal liability of the offender. 9. Illness of the offender;
10. Similar and analogous circumstances; and
Example: 11. Humanitarian reasons (Jarillo v. People, G.R. No.
(1) In the offense of infanticide, concealment of 164435, September 29, 2009).
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the
pregnant woman and the maternal grandparents are NOTE: Mitigating circumstances must be present prior
concerned. to or simultaneously with the commission of the offense,
except voluntary surrender or confession of guilt by the
(2) In the offense of abortion under Art. 258, the liability accused (RPC, ART. 13, Par. 7).
of a pregnant woman will be mitigated if her purpose is
to conceal dishonor. (Such circumstance is not available Effects of mitigating circumstances in the nature
to the parents of the pregnant woman). of the crime
They reduce the penalty but do not change the nature
(3) Also, under Art. 333, if the person guilty of adultery of the crime.
committed the offense while being abandoned without
justification, the penalty next lower in degree shall be Classes of mitigating circumstances
imposed. 1. Ordinary mitigating; and
2. Privileged mitigating.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Ordinary mitigating vis-à-vis Privileged mitigating
Mitigating Circumstances ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in Can be offset by Can never be offset by any
the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the aggravating circumstances aggravating circumstance
actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the Ordinary mitigating Privileged mitigating
penalty. circumstances, if not circumstances operate to
offset, will operate to reduce the penalty by one
reduce the penalty to the to two degrees, depending
minimum period, provided upon what the law
the penalty is a divisible provides.
one.
Privileged mitigating circumstances under the
RPC
1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years of age
(RPC, Art. 68); (BAR 2013, 2014)
2. When the crime committed is not wholly excusable
(RPC, Art. 691);
3. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the
court shall impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem
applicable, according the number and nature of such
circumstances (RPC, Art. 64, par. 5); (BAR 1997)
4. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained
within 3 days without the offender attaining his
purpose and before the institution of the criminal
action (RPC, Art. 268, par. 3);
5. Abandonment without justification by the offended
spouse in case of adultery (RPC, Art. 333, par. 3); and
6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide and
abortion (RPC, Art. 255, par. 2).
NOTE: If it is the maternal grandparent who committed
the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty
imposed is one degree lower. If it is the
pregnant woman who committed the offense to
conceal dishonor, the penalty imposed is two
degrees lower. In case of concealing dishonor by
a pregnant woman in abortion, the imposable
penalty is merely lowered by period and not by
degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Privileged mitigating circumstances
contemplated under Art. 69
Incomplete justifying (RPC, Art. 11) and incomplete
exempting (RPC, Art. 12) circumstances, provided that
the majority of their conditions are present.
For this article to apply, it is necessary that:
1. Some of the conditions required to justify the deed or
to exempt from criminal liability are lacking,
2. The majority of such conditions are nonetheless
present, and
1
Crime is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some
of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt
from criminal liability in several cases in Articles 11 and 12,
provided majority of the conditions be present
3. When the circumstance has an indispensable
element, that element must be present in the case
(Regalado, 2007).
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE (ART. 13[1], RPC)
Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstance
Incomplete justifying/exempting circumstance means
that not all the requisites to justify the act are present
or not all the requisites to exempt from criminal
liability are present.
(There should be majority of the requisites present.
Hence, if there are 3 requisites, 2 requisites should be
present. If there are 2 requisites, only 1 requisite is
necessary)
Effect on criminal liability of the
offender of incomplete justifying
circumstances or incomplete exempting
circumstances
1. If less than the majority of the requisites
necessary to justify the act (provided unlawful
aggression is present) or exempt from criminal
liability are present, the offender shall only be
entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
2. If a majority of the requisites needed to justify
the act (provided unlawful aggression is
present) or exempt from criminal liability are
present, the offender shall be given the benefit
of a privileged mitigating circumstance. The
imposable penalty shall be lowered by one or
two degrees. When there are only two
conditions to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability, the presence of one shall be
regarded as the majority.
Condition necessary before incomplete self-
defense, defense of relative, or defense of
stranger may be invoked
The offended party must be guilty of unlawful
aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there can be
no incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or
defense of stranger.

Effect on the criminal liability of the offender
of incomplete self-defense, defense of
relative, or defense of stranger
1. If only the element of unlawful aggression is
present, the other requisites being absent, the
offender shall be given only the benefit of an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
2. However, if aside from the element of unlawful
aggression another requisite, but not all, is
present, the offender shall be given the benefit
of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such
a case, the imposable penalty shall be reduced
by one or two degrees depending upon how the
court regards the importance of the requisites
present or absent.
Not applicable to exempting circumstance of accident
a. Under Art. 12, par. 4, there are four requisites
for the exempting circumstance of accident.
First, a person must be performing a lawful act.
Second, such must be done with due care.
Third, an injury was caused to another by mere
accident. Fourth, there is no fault or intention of
causing such injury.
b. If the act was performed with due care but
there was fault in causing an injury, the case will
fall under Article 365, felonies by negligence or
imprudence. The effect would be like a
mitigating circumstance since said article states
that the penalty will be lower than if the felony
was committed intentionally.
c. If the person is performing a lawful act but has
the intention to cause an injury, it will be an
intentional felony, the second and third
requisite will no longer apply.
UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD
(ART. 13[2], RPC)
Coverage
Offenders who are:
1. Over 15 but under 18 years old who acted with
discernment; and
2. Over 70 years old
NOTE: It is the age of the accused at the time of the
commission of the crime which should be
determined.
Legal effects of the various age brackets of the
offender with respect to his criminal liability
AGE BRACKET EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
15 and under Exempting circumstance
Over 15 but Exempting circumstance, if he acted
under 18 without discernment
Mitigating circumstance, if he acted
with discernment
18-70 Full criminal responsibility
Over 70 Mitigating circumstance; no
imposition of death penalty;
execution of death sentence if
already imposed is suspended and
commuted
Senility and its effect
Senility, or “second childhood” is generally used to
describe the state of a person of very old age with
impaired or diminished mental faculties similar to but
not on the level of the early years of infancy.
It can, at most, be only mitigating, unless the mental
deterioration has become a case of senile dementia
approximating insanity, in which case it may be
considered as an exempting circumstance.
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE
A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
(ART. 13[3], RPC)
Basis
The basis is diminution of intent.
It is necessary that there be a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed by the
offender compared to that of the resulting felony. If the
resulting felony could be expected from the means
employed, the circumstance of praeter intentionem
cannot be availed.
Not applicable to felonies by negligence
It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because the self-defense and thus, no longer a mitigating
offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional circumstance.
felonies is replaced by negligence or imprudence.
Factors in order to ascertain the intention Provocation
1. The weapon used;
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of
2. The part of the body injured;
the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
3. The injury inflicted; and irritating anyone.
4. The manner it is inflicted.
Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at
1. Provocation must be sufficient;
the particular moment when the offender executes or
commits the criminal act and not during the planning 2. It must originate from the offended party;
stage. and
3. It must be immediate to the act3.
Not applicable when the offender employed brute
force. If the rapist choked the victim, the choking “Sufficient threat or provocation as a
contradicts the claim that he had no intention to kill the mitigating circumstance” vis-à-vis “Threat or
girl.
provocation as an element of self- defense”
Effect if the victim does not die in crimes against
As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence
persons. The absence of the intent to kill reduces the
on the part of the person defending himself while as a
felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as
mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on
mitigating. It is only mitigating when the victim dies.
the part of the offended party (People v. CA, G.R No.
103613, Feb. 23, 2001).
Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong cannot be appreciated. The mitigating
Sufficiency depends on:
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a
1. The act constituting the provocation
wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be
2. The social standing of the person provoked
appreciated where the acts employed by the accused
3. Time and place the provocation took place
were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually
produce the death of the victim (People v. Sales, G.R.
Q: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas
No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
because of the insults. Can Petra avail of the
mitigating circumstance?
NOTE: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
cannot be raised as a mitigating circumstance
A: NO. There is no mitigating circumstance because it
under the Anti-Hazing Law.
was the mother who insulted her, not Thomas. The
liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar as it
SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION 2 concerns the harm inflicted on the person who made
(ART. 13[4], RPC) the provocation, but not with regard to the other
victims who did not participate in the provocation
Basis (US v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 3964, November 26,
1907).
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby
diminishing the exercise of his will power. Reason why the law require that “provocation
must be immediate to the act,” (i.e., to the
Threat need not be offensive and positively strong commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked)
Threat should not be offensive and positively strong
because if it was, the threat to inflict real injury
becomes an unlawful aggression which may give rise to
3
There should be no sufficient lapse of time between the
2
On the part of the victim provocation and the criminal act.
If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the
offended party could not have excited the accused to
the commission of the crime, he having had time to
regain his reason and to exercise self-control.
Moreover, the law presupposes that during that
interval, whatever anger or diminished self-control may
have emerged from the offender had already vanished
or diminished.
As long as the offender at the time he committed the
felony was still under the influence of the outrage
caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting under
a diminished self-control. This is the reason why it is
mitigating. However, there are two criteria that must
be taken into consideration:
1. If there is a material lapse of time and there is no
finding that the effect of the threat or provocation
had prolonged and affected the offender at the time
he committed the crime, then the criterion to be
used is based on time element.
2. However, if there is that time element and at the
same time, there is a finding that at the time the
offender committed the crime, he is still suffering
from outrage of the threat or provocation done to
him, then, he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
(ART. 13[5], RPC)
Basis
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby,
diminishing the exercise of his will power.
NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. It
concerns the good names and reputation of the
individual (U.S. v. Ampar, G.R. No. 12883, November 26,
1917).
Requisites of vindication of a grave offense
1. Grave offense has been done to the one
committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree;
and
2. A felony is committed in vindication of such
grave offense.
“Offense” contemplated
The word offense should not be construed as equivalent
to crime. It is enough that a wrong doing was
committed.
Factors to be considered in determining whether the
wrong is grave or not
1. Age;
2. Education; and
3. Social status.
Lapse of time allowed between the
vindication and the doing of the grave offense
The word “immediate” in par. 5 is not an accurate
translation of the Spanish text which uses the term
“proxima.” A lapse of time is allowed between the
vindication and the doing of the grave offense. It is
enough that:
1. The offender committed the crime;
2. The grave offense was done to him, his spouse, his
ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister,
whether natural, adopted or legitimate; and
3. The grave offense is the proximate cause of the
commission of the crime.
Where four days elapsed from the knowledge of the
supposed sexual assault and the attack, there was
sufficient time to regain composure and self-control.
Thus, there was no “immediate vindication of a grave
offense” (People v. Rebucan. G.R. 182551, July 27,
2011).
Circumstances of sufficient threat or provocation
vis-à-vis vindication of a grave offense
SUFFICIENT THREAT OR VINDICATION OF GRAVE
PROVOCATION OFFENSE
It is made directly only to The grave offense may be
the person committing the committed also against
felony. the offender’s relatives
mentioned in the law.
The cause that brought The offended party must
about the provocation have done a grave offense
need not be a grave against the offender or his
offense. relatives mentioned in the
law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the
provocation or threat grave offense may be
immediately preceded the proximate which admits
act. There must be no of interval of time
interval of time between between the grave offense
the provocation and the committed by the
commission of the crime. offended party and the
 commission of the crime equanimity. (meaning, no sufficient lapse of
of the accused. time)

Applicable rule when the three mitigating

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION circumstances of sufficient threat or
(ART. 13[6], RPC) provocation (par. 4), vindication of a grave
wrong (par. 5) and passion or obfuscation
Basis
(par. 6) are present
The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby
GR: If the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4,
diminishing the exercise of his will power.
he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6,
or vice-versa. Only one of the three mitigating
Passion or obfuscation (BAR 2013) circumstances should be given in favor of the
offender.
Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional
feeling which produces excitement so XPN: If the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs
powerful as to overcome reason and self- 4, 5 and 6 arise from different sets of facts, they
may be appreciated together, although they may
control. It must come from prior unjust or have arisen from one and the same case.
improper acts. The passion and obfuscation
must emanate from legitimate sentiments. Circumstances where passion or obfuscation is not a
mitigating circumstance
Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
If the act is committed in the spirit of:
circumstance need not be felt only in the
1. Lawlessness; or
seconds before the commission of the crime. It 2. Revenge
may build up and strengthen over time until it
can no longer be repressed and will ultimately Appreciation of passion and obfuscation as a
motivate the commission of the crime (People mitigating circumstance
v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015). It may be appreciated even if the reported acts causing
obfuscation was not true, as long as it was honestly and
Elements of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating reasonably believed by the accused to be true (People
circumstance v. Guhiting, G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951).
1. Accused acted upon an impulse; and
2. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally Passion/Obfuscation vis-à-vis Provocation
produced passion or obfuscation in him. The passion PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION
or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments It is produced by an The provocation comes
in order to be mitigating. impulse which may cause from the injured party.
provocation.
Requisites of passion or obfuscation The offense need not be It must immediately
1. That there is an act, both unlawful and immediate. It is only precede the commission
required that the influence of the crime.
sufficient to produce such a condition of thereof lasts until the
mind; and moment the crime is
2. That the said act which produced the committed.
obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable Passion/Obfuscation vis-à-vis Irresistible force
length of time, during which the PASSION/OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
perpetrator might recover his natural Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance
It cannot give rise to It requires physical force.
irresistible force because
passion or obfuscation has
no physical force.
The passion or obfuscation It must come from a third
is on the offender himself. person.
It must arise from lawful The force used is unlawful.
sentiments.
Invocation of passion or obfuscation
As a rule, passion or obfuscation can only be used as a
mitigating circumstance. However, under Art. 247
(Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional
Circumstances), it may be used as an exempting
circumstance, if an injury is inflicted other than serious
physical injuries and killing.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND
CONFESSION OF GUILT
(ART. 13[7], RPC)
Basis
The basis is the lesser perversity of the offender. The
offender is willing to accept the consequences of the
wrong he has done which thereby saves the
government the effort, time and expenses to be
incurred in searching for him.
Mitigating circumstances under this paragraph
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his
agents; and
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior
to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
When both are present, they should have
the effect of two independent mitigating
circumstances.
Requisites of voluntary surrender
1. Offender had not been actually arrested;
2. Surrender was made to a person in authority or the
latter’s agent; and
3. Surrender was voluntary.
Surrender considered as voluntary
Surrender is considered voluntary when it is
spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit himself
unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent.
Whether a warrant of arrest had been issued against
the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The criterion
is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or
had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law
enforcers do not know of his whereabouts.
NOTE: If after committing the crime, the offender did
not flee and instead waited for the law
enforcers to arrive, and then he surrendered
the weapon he used in killing the victim,
voluntary surrender is mitigating.
“Spontaneous”
It emphasizes the idea of inner impulse acting without
external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his
intention alone, after the commission of the offense,
determines the spontaneity of the surrender.
Requirement that the accused surrender prior to the
order of arrest
The law does not require that the accused surrender
prior to the order of arrest. What matters is the
spontaneous surrender of the accused upon learning
that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him
and that voluntary surrender is obedience to the order
of arrest issued against him (People v. Cahilig, G.R. No.
46612, October 14, 1939).
Person in authority
He is one directly vested with jurisdiction ,
whether as an individual or as a member of some
court/government/corporation/board/commission.
Agent of a person in authority
He is a person who, by direct provision of law, or by
election, or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
Q: If the accused escapes from the scene of the
crime in order to seek advice from a lawyer, and
the latter ordered him to surrender voluntarily
to the authorities, which the accused followed
by surrendering himself to the municipal mayor,
will his surrender be considered mitigating?
A: YES, because he fled to the scene of a crime not
to escape but to seek legal advice.
Q: Supposing that after the accused met a vehicular
accident causing multiple homicide because of
 reckless imprudence, he surrenders to the
authorities immediately thereafter, will his
surrender mitigate his liability because of Art.
13?
A: NO. In cases involving felonies committed by
means of culpa, the court is authorized under
Art.365 to impose a penalty upon the offender
without regard to the rules on mitigating and
aggravating circumstances.
Requisites of confession of guilt (BAR 1999)
1. The offender voluntarily confessed his guilt;
2. It was made in open court (that is before the
competent court that is to try the case); and
3. It was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.
Plea of guilty not applicable to all crimes
A plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies, and
in crimes punished by special laws.
Conditional plea of guilty
To be mitigating, the plea of guilty must be without
conditions. But conditional plea of guilty may still be
mitigating if the conditions imposed by the accused are
found to be meritorious.
Q: Upon learning that the police wanted him for the
killing of Polistico, Jeprox decided to visit the police
station to make inquiries. On his way, he met a
policeman who immediately served upon him the
warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in the course
of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence,
Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty. Can he invoke
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and plea of guilty? (BAR 1992)
A: NO. Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going to
the police station was only for the purpose of
verification of the news that he is wanted by the
authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender must
be spontaneous and that he acknowledges his guilt.
Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstance
because it was a qualified plea. Besides, Art. 13(7)
provides that confession of guilt must be done
before the prosecution had started to present
evidence.
NOTE: Where in the original information the accused
pleaded not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to the
amended information, it is considered as a
voluntary plea of guilty and considered a
mitigating circumstance. (People v. Ortiz, G.R. No
L-19585, Nov. 29, 1965).
PHYSICAL DEFECT
(ART. 13[8], RPC)
Basis
The basis is the diminution of the element of
voluntariness.
Physical defect
A person's physical condition, such as being deaf and
dumb, blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer, whereby his
means of action, defense or communication with
others are restricted or limited. The physical defect
that a person may have must have a relation to the
commission of the crime.
Requisites of physical defect
1. The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
suffering from some physical defect; and
2. Such physical defect restricts his means of action,
defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
Q: Suppose X is deaf and dumb and he has been
slandered, he cannot talk so what he did was, he got
a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. X
was charged with physical injuries. Is X entitled to a
mitigating circumstance by reason of his physical
defect?
A: YES, the Supreme Court held that being a deaf and
dumb is mitigating because the only way to vindicate
himself is to use his force because he cannot strike
back by words.
NOTE: The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb,
meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or that he
is blind, meaning in both eyes, but even if he is
only deaf and not dumb, or dumb but not deaf,
or blind only in eye, he is still entitled to a
mitigating circumstance under this article as long
as his physical defects restricts his means of
 communication, defense, communication with
his fellowmen.
ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER
(ART. 13[9], RPC)
Basis
The basis is diminution of intelligence and intent.
Requisites of illness of the offender
1. Illness of the offender must diminish the
exercise of will power; and
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender
the consciousness of his acts.
If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the
offender’s will power but deprives him of the
consciousness of his acts, it becomes an exempting
circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility.
NOTE: Polio victim in his younger days of limping while
he walks cannot claim mitigating circumstance in
the crime of oral defamation.
SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES
(ART. 13[10], RPC)
Examples of analogous circumstances
1. The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers
to the place where he buried the instrument of the
crime has been considered as equivalent to
voluntary surrender.
2. Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of
extreme poverty is considered as analogous to
incomplete state of necessity (People v. Macbul, G.R.
No. 48976, October 11, 1943), unless he became
impoverished because of his own way of living his
life, i.e. he had so many vices.
3. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is
similar to a case of a person over 70 years of age
(People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A. G.R. No. 301, July
27, 1938).
4. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and
obfuscation.
5. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary
surrender.
6. Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken for
ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense.
7. Esprit de corps is similar to passion and obfuscation.
8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal
possession of firearm after the liberation (People v.
Quemuel, 76 Phil 135), as being similar to lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong.
9. Testifying for the prosecution without being
discharged from the information (People v. Narvasca,
et al., G.R. No. L-28107, March 15, 1977), as being
like a plea of guilty.
10. Acting out of embarrassment and fear caused by the
victim because of gambling debts of the accused
(People v. Ong, et al., G.R. No. L-34497, January 30,
1975), as akin to passion or obfuscation.
11. Retaliating for having been assaulted during a public
dance where the accused was well known and
respected (People v. Libria, 95 Phil. 398), as similar to
vindication.
12. When the petitioner submits extrajudicial
confession through the handwritten letter coupled
with her act of surrendering the redeemed pawn
tickets and thereafter going to the police station
(Frontreras v. People, G.R. No. 190583, December
07, 2015), as an analogous circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
Significance of this paragraph
The significance of this paragraph is that even though a
particular circumstance does not fall under any of the
enumerated circumstances in Art. 13, the court is
authorized to consider in favor of the accused “any
other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous
to those mentioned.”
In Jarillo case, the SC ruled that an abandoned wife who
remained and found guilty of Bigamy, is entitled to a
mitigating circumstance of “for humanitarian reason” as
her marriage with the complainant was later on
declared null and void (G.R. No. 164435, September 29,
2009).