EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES – are
those if present or attendant in the
commission in a felony, would exempt the
offender from criminal liability. The
offender will be exempt from criminal
liability because he acted without
voluntariness. There is either no criminal
intent, no freedom of action or no
intelligence on the part of the offender.
Since there is no voluntariness, the offender
incurs no criminal liability, although a
crime has been indeed committed.
Therefore, if in the commission of a
wrongful act, and the exempting
circumstances under art 12 is present,
there is a crime committed but there is
no criminal because he acted without
voluntariness hence there is no criminal
liability but there is a civil liability
because indeed a crime has been
committed.
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ART. 12)
1ST EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: AN IMBECILE OR
AN INSANE PERSON, UNLESS THE LATTER HAS
ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL.
 IMBECILE PERSON is one who is
already an advance in age but he
has only a mental capacity of a 2-7-
year-old child. Therefore, he lack
intelligence in the commission of the
crime.
 INSANE PERSON when he is
suffering from total mental
aberration of the mind. An insane
person is one who cannot
distinguish right from wrong,
good from evil, one who cannot
appreciate the consequences of
his act. In order for insanity to lie in
favor of the accused, it is necessary
that it is present immediately prior
to or at the time of the commission
of the crime. If the said accused
becomes insane after the
commission of the crime, such
insanity would no longer absolve or
exempt him from criminal liability. It
can only exempt him from serve of
sentence, he would be brought to
the mental institution but the
moment he regains his sanity, he
will be brought behind bars.
Since all persons are presumed sane,
the burden to prove insanity lies on the
defense. The moment insanity has been
invoked by the accused, he is in effect
admitting the commission of the crime
however he is avoiding criminal liability
by saying that he did it because he was
insane at the time of the commission of
the crime therefore, he is exempted from
criminal liability.
 PEOPLE vs MARZAN – the SC
said the insanity that is
exempting refers to total
aberration of the mind. Mere
abnormalities of the mental
faculties is not the insanity that
exempts the offender. If ever the
testimony of the accused and
the wife were true, the accused
is suffering from mere
abnormality of mental faculties
but the said accused was still
aware of the commission of the
crime of killing the victim.
2nd and 3RD EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES:
MINORITY
How does minority affect the criminal
liability of the offender?
 If the child in conflict with the
law is 15 years old or under at
the commission of the crime, he
is totally exempted from
criminal liability regardless of
discernment. If, however, the
child in conflict with the law is
over 15 but below 18 years old,
he is exempted from criminal
liability if he acted without
discernment. But if he acted
with discernment, he shall be
prosecuted in court.
 Under section 38 of RA 8344 as
amended, in case of conviction
of a child in conflict with the law
who acted with discernment,
there shall be no
pronouncement as to his guilt.
There should be a
pronouncement of only civil
liability arising from and base
solely on the crime committed.
And the said CICL without need
of any application shall be
placed under suspended
sentence. Even if at the time of
promulgation of judgment, he is
already 18 years old and above
provided he is not yet beyond 21
years old, he will be placed
under suspended sentence.
Because under sec 40 of RA
8344, the said CICL is entitled
to a suspended sentence
provided he is not yet 21 years
old. The moment he becomes
21, then he is no longer entitled
to suspended sentence. If
already beyond 21, he no longer
entitled to a suspended
sentence but he should not
serve his sentence in a regular
penal institution instead he
shall be required to serve his
sentence in an agricultural
camp or training facilities in
coordination with DSWD.
 Whatever be the crime
committed by the CICL, he is
entitled to a suspended
sentence without need of
application because sec 38 of
RA 8344 does not distinguish as
to the nature of the crime
committed by the CICL.

4th EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: ANY
PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A
LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES
AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT
WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF
CAUSING IT. There is otherwise known
as “ACCIDENT”.
For accident to exempt the offender
from criminal liability, the following
elements must be proven:
1. The offender is performing a lawful
act
2. He is performing the lawful act with
due care
3. He caused an injury to another by
mere accident
4. The injury was caused without fault
or intent on the part of the offender.
AS A GENERAL RULE: in exempting
circumstances, there is a crime but there is no
criminal liability and there is a civil liability
because a crime has been committed.
THE EXCEPTION TO THIS is Paragraph
number 4 in case of accident. IN CASE OF
ACCIDENT THERE IS BOTH NO CRIMINAL AND
CIVIL LIABILITY. Reason is, offender is
performing a lawful act with due care and the
injury was caused by accident. ANOTHER
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE IS THE
7TH EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE.
The child 17 years old has been taught by his
police officer father how to clean a gun and every
morning the father would always hand his pistol
to X, his 17 year old child and the said child
would clean the gun and would give it to his
father before going to the police station. One
morning after cleaning the gun, X saw Y his
brother playing with his toys , he pointed the gun
at his brother and pulled the trigger. The bullet hit
the head of Y who is only 3 years old, the brother
died.
5TH EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: ANY
PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE
FORCE, elements:
1. There must exist some physical
force
2. The physical force must be
irresistible
3. The irresistible force must come from
a third person.
 Force is said to be irresistible
when it has reduced the
offender to a mere
instrument such that he
acted not only without will
but also against his will.
There is freedom of action on
the part of the offender - an
element of voluntariness.
Hence he is exempted from
criminal liability.
6th EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: ANY
PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER
INJURY, elements:
1. There must exist an uncontrollable
fear
2. The uncontrollable fear must be real
and is imminent
3. The fear of the injury must be
greater or equal to the crime
committed
The said fear is uncontrollable when it reduced
him to a mere instrument such as he acted not
only without will but also against his will. The
2nd element requires that the said fear must be
real and imminent, which means that the fear
must be actual, not imaginative it must not be in
the future and not speculative.
 Both acting under the
compulsion of an irresistible
force and acting under the
impulse of an uncontrollable
fear of equal or greater injury
are considered as exempting
circumstance because the
offender acted without freedom
of action. Totally, there must be
no freedom of action, no
freedom of choice to act for
these exempting circumstances
to lie in favor of the accused.
The accused was charged with BP 22. When the
said checks that he issued to the hospital, it
bounced. During the trial, he raised the following
defenses: he acted under an impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury – her
mother threatened to commit suicide if she would
not be released from the hospital. In this case, the
mother of the accused was hospitalized for 1 yr
and because of that their bill reached 1M and the
mother was already cured but the hospital would
not release the mother because the bill was not
yet paid. Will this defense lie in favor of the
accused?
No. there is uncontrollable fear – the fear that her
mother would commit suicide. But the 2 nd element
is absent – such fear that the mother will commit
suicide is not real or imminent, it is not actual, it
is not impending to happen, it is speculative, in
the future, imaginative . thus this exempting
circumstance will not lie in favor of the accused.
7th EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: ANY
PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN
ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN
PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR
INSUPERABLE CAUSE:
 exempted from criminal and also
civil liability because what prevented
the offender from doing the act
 required by law is some penalty prescribed
lawful/insuperable cause. Since he by law.
was acting lawfully, therefore, he is 1ST MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: THOSE
absolved of criminal as well as civil JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
liability. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN ALL
THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY
THE ACT OR TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE
NOT ATTENDANT

In other words, we have incomplete justifying

circumstances and incomplete exempting
circumstances
SO HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES FROM  In order to determine whether
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES? an incomplete
justifying/exempting
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING circumstance shall be treated as
JC would affect the EC would affect the privilege or ordinary mitigating
act and not the offender and not the circumstance, we have to know
offender act
the following rules:
The offender acted The offender indeed
1. If majority of the elements
within the bounds of committed a wrongful
the law, hence no act necessary to justify the act
wrongful act is or to exempt the offender
committed from criminal liability are
present in the commission
There is no crime There is a crime but of the crime, the incomplete
and there is no there is no criminal justifying/exempting
criminal bec the bec the offender acted circumstances shall be
offender acted within without voluntariness treated as a privilege
the bounds of the law mitigating circumstance
There is both no There is no criminal 2. If less than a majority of
criminal and civil liability but as a rule elements necessary to
liability there is civil liability justify the act or to exempt
because a
from criminal liability, the
wrong/crime has
incomplete
indeed been
committed justifying/exempting
JC may be raised as EC may be raised as circumstance shall be
defenses in defenses both in treated as an ordinary
intentional felony intentional felony and mitigating circumstance
culpable felony 3. If there are only 2 elements
necessary to justify the
act/exempt from criminal
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 13) are liability, the presence of one
those which if present or attendant in the shall be considered already
commission of a felony would serve to lower the as majority, therefore, it
imposable penalty on the said offender. There is shall be treated as a
a reduction to the penalty because the offender privilege mitigating
acted with diminution of voluntariness. There is circumstance
a diminution of voluntariness either on criminal 4. In case of incomplete self-
intent, freedom of action or intelligence. Hence defense, defense of relative,
there is a reduction to the imposable period of stranger – there must
penalty to the minimum period of the penalty always be the element of
prescribed by law. unlawful aggression. If only
the element of unlawful
Under Art. 13, there are two kinds of
aggression attended the
mitigating circumstances:
commission of the crime,
1. PRIVILEGE MITIGATING the incomplete self-defense,
CIRCUMSTANCES – are those which defense of relative/stranger,
cannot be offset by any aggravating shall be treated as an
circumstances ordinary mitigating
- Has the effect of circumstances. But, if aside
lowering the from unlawful aggression ,
imposable penalty another element attended
by at least one the commission of the
degree crime, the incomplete
2. ORDINARY MITIGATING justifying circumstance of
CIRCUMSTANCES – may be offset by a incomplete self-
generic aggravating circumstance defense/relative/stranger,
- Has only the effect shall be treated as a
of lowering the privilege mitigating
imposable penalty circumstance
to its minimum 2ND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: THE
period of the OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR
OVER 70 YEARS.
  If minority is not an exempting
circumstance, minority is
always AND ALWAYS, a privilege
mitigating circumstance.
Therefore, if the offender is over
15 but below 18, acted with
discernment, he is no longer
exempted from criminal liability
but his minority shall be treated
as a privilege mitigating
circumstance which will lower
the imposable penalty by 1
degree. As provided for under
art 68(2) of RPC, the penalty will
be lowered by 1 degree when the
offender is over 15 but below 18
acting with discernment. Hence
it is a privilege mitigating
circumstance.
3RD MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE:
THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO
INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A
WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED –
PRAETER INTERTIONEM, elements:
1. Intentional felony have been
committed
2. There is notable disparity
between the means employed
of the offender and the
resulting felony
4th MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: THAT
SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON
THE PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT,
elements:
1. There must be sufficient provocation
2. The said provocation must originate
from the offended party
3. The commission of the crime must be
immediate to the said provocation
 SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
which must come from the
offended party(victim).
PROVOCATION IS SAID TO BE
SUFFICIENT WHEN IT IS
ADEQUATE TO <> A PERSON
TO COMMIT A WRONGFUL ACT
AND IT IS PROPORTIONATE TO
THE GRAVITY OF THE ACT.
 3RD ELEMENT: requires NO
lapse of time between the
provocation and the
commission of the crime.
Right after the said offended
party provoked the accused, the
accused already committed the
crime. If there is a lapse of time
between the provocation and the
commission of the crime, this
mitigating circumstance can no
longer be considered in favor of
the accused.
5TH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: THAT THE
ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE
ONE COMMITTING THE FELONY, HIS
SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS,
LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED
BROTHERS OR SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY
AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREES OR
RELATIVES BY CONSAGUINTY WITH THE 4 TH
CIVIL DEGREE, elements:
1. There is a grave offense done to the one
committing the felony (accused), or to
his immediate relatives
2. The said commission of the crime was
done in immediate vindication of the
grave offense done on the accused or to
his immediate relatives
 Otherwise stated, the said grave
offense committed to the
accused or to his immediate
relatives was the “proximate
cause” of the commission of the
crime.
 The grave offense being referred
to need not be a punishable act.
It refers to any act that was the
said accused tensioned, anxiety,
and moved him to make a
revenge – that would suffice. It
need not be a punishable act.
 The word “immediate” in case of
immediate vindication of a grave
offense allows a lapse of time
between the commission of the
grave offense and the
commission of the crime.
REASON IS: the SC said there
was an erroneous spanish
translation. The spanish codigo
penal the word used their was
“proxima” but when it was
translated in RPC, the word
used was “immediate”.
Therefore, applying this
provision of this spanish codigo
penal, it suffices that the grave
offense be the “proximate cause”
of the commission of the crime.
THERE MAY BE A LAPSE OF
TIME IN BETWEEN , BUT NOT
TOO LONG OF LAPSE OF TIME
AS TO MAKE THE OFFENDER
RECOVER HIS NORMAL
EQUANIMITY.
6TH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: THAT OF
HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO
POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO HAVE
PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION,
elements:
1. There is an act both unlawful and
sufficient to produce passion or
obfuscation on the part of the
accused
2. The commission of the crime must
not be far removed from the
commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time during
which the offender might have
recovered his normal equanimity.
 It is necessary that there is an
unlawful act done to the
accused. And because of this
unlawful act done to him, he felt
passion or obfuscation that
moved him to commit the said
crime. There must be NO lapse
of time between the commission
 of the unlawful act and the
commission of the crime.
The husband learned that his wife was
having an affair. He confronted the wife
and the wife admitted that indeed, she is
having an affair. This caused their
separation. After 2 weeks, the husband
decided to get even. He went to the
market where the paramour of his wife
was working and at a distance he shoot
the paramour. The husband was charged
with murder. In order to reduce the
penalty, he raised the mitigating
circumstances that he acted in
vindication of a grave offense committed
to him and he acted upon an impulse.
Are these mitigating circumstances
present?

Both mitigating circumstances

were not considered by the Supreme
Court. SC said, 2 weeks was already too
long for the said accused to have
recovered his normal equanimity.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the said
act of killing was done in immediate
vindication of a grave offense neither can
it be said that the said act of killing was
done based on sudden impulse of
passion or obfuscation. The said accused
was convicted without considering the
mitigating circumstances.

When the husband arrived home from

Manila, the brother of the husband
reported to him that their neighbor W
tried to molest his wife. The said
husband was so mad. 4 days thereafter,
the husband went to the house of the
neighbor and he hacked the neighbor to
death. In order to lower the imposable
penalty, he invoked that his commission
of the crime was attended with
mitigating circumstances of: 1) immediate
vindication of a grave offense ; and , 2)
sudden impulse of passion or
obfuscation.

Both mitigating circumstances

are absent. 4 days is already too long a
time for the offender to recover his
normal equanimity.

 If the mitigating circumstances

no. 4, 5, and 6 are attendant, it
shall be considered only as one
mitigating circumstance, thus,
the imposable penalty shall
lowered only once. It is not
necessary that they be treated as
3 separate and distinct
mitigating circumstances but
rather they should be treated as
only one mitigating
circumstance because they arose
from the same facts and
circumstances.