Circumstances affecting criminal liability
Distinction: 11 and 12: affect whether liability will attach or arise circumstance
13, 14, and 15 – circumstances affecting the penalty
Article 11: justifying circumstances
If proven -> lawful
The person does not have criminal intent. The act under the circumstances
is considered lawful because the circumstance substitutes for the intent.
Person is considered exempt from liability
There is no liability because there is no crime.
Person is considered incapable of forming an intent.
Self-defense, defense of relative and defense of relative are taken together
because they have related elements
Unlawful aggression: not a crime. Aggression is unprovoked.
Unjustified. Act of defense is a reaction, a response to the aggression.
Self-defense 11(1) – if there was unlawful aggression, the person must show
that there was no provocation on his part.
2nd element: the means taken are considered reasonable.
Circumstances to prevent or repel the aggressor.
Accused: person making the defense
Defense consistent with the circumsntances of the aggression
No one to one correspondence
If the aggression was done by means of fists, it does not mean that
the response must be equal. The circumsntaces must be considered. Under
the circumstnaces, if the response was met by virtue of a weapon, the judge
must see if the use of weapon was reasonable under the circumstances.
Inequality of strength, ability of means to repel the aggression.
Hitting a with a rock then that may be considered reasonable under the
circumstances
If there is no complete self-defense we know that it becomes a mitigating
Incomplete self-defense: if a majority but not all of the elements are
present.
Indispensable elements: unlawful aggression (if absent =/= justifying
circumstance)
Disproportionate means taken. Incomplete justifying circumstance. It
becomes a mitigating circumstance.
You can use under the second element. Does a person need to wait for an
injury to happen? Defense is not limited to the person. It also covers rights.
Self-defense may not be only limited to felonies against persons. It may also
felonies against property.
Principle of self-help. If a person’s property is being invaded (unlawful
aggression). The owner may take measures to repel.
Can a person take steps to prevent or repel the libel?
Jurisprudence recognizes counter libel as a means of self-defense when
there has been a previous libel that…disseminated.
Criminal procedure. Remedial law. When a person during arraignment and
pre-trial is asked to plead and the person admits but interposes a lawful
defense. That is the situation of self-defense.
Consequence: the order of presentation of trial is reversed because
the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution is satisfied by the
admission.
If self-defense is not proven, the judge may render judgment
because of admission
11(2) defense of relatives
 (1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonableness of the means used to prevent/repel aggression
(3) Even if the relative had given provocation, the person making the
defense had taken no part in the provocation.
Enumeration is exclusive.
ONLY RELATIVES COVERED BY THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
Art. 20 – accessories who are not liable by reason of relationship
USES THE WORD EXEMPT. Not an exempting circumstance. Because
not listed in article 12. The proper term is absolutory. It absolves the person
of criminal liability.
The relatives covered by article 11 (2). IF the person is not covered by that
list, then automatically the person becomes a stranger under Article 3.
The third element is different.
Third element – person defending is not motivated by revenge, resentment,
hate or other evil motive.
11(4)
Act causing damage to another if. First that there is an evil sought to be
avoided.
(1) That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
(2) That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
(3) That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
Under Article 11 – no civil liability
Article 11(4) – THERE IS CIVIL LIABILITY which is borne by those who
benefitted from the act of the accused.
Civil liability – 3 items
(1) Restitution
(2) Reparation
(3) Indemnification
Restitution – property itself
Reparation – the accused must pay and
Indemnification - in any event, any consequential damages must be born by
the person who is liable
11(5) anyone who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or the lawful exercise of a
right or office. Pretty straightforward. The act that may have caused an
injury or damage is pursuant to a duty, justified act.
The judge must look at whether there was criminal intent.
(6) any person who acts…obedience to lawful superior.
2 relationships: there must be a relationship of obedience. Hierarchy where
the person who acts and is charging a felony has the duty of obedience.
There must be a superior subordinate relationship.
Common in the military, police, armed forced.
Or even in the civil service.
Might also be present in the private enterprise where there is a clear
superior-subordinate relationship
(2) not only must the one who gives the authorized be authorized to give
the order. The order must have been given for some lawful purpose.
Even if with authority and not w/ lawful purpose – can he claim the
justifying circumstance? No.
Law enforcement. One outranks another is lawful because that person is
authorized to give that order.
Accused obeys or complies with the order. Criminal intent that was
informed. Voluntary act of taking the criminal intent.
Judges of the Sandigabayan were clearly partial.
Went beyond the pale of clarificatory questions. They took on the
tone of an adversarial prosecutorial interrogation
Tabuena v Sandiganbayan
1 separate opinion said it was wrong because no question of good
faith required here. Because the accused were not charge with crimes
requiring criminal intent. Malversation through negligence (Romero)
Addressed that point directly instead of resulting to due process
Under international law, Nuremberg trial. We were obeying orders of Hitler
Lawful purpose – cannot be a justifying circumstance if not
Justifying circumstance = acquittal. Because no criminal intent can be
appreciated
Can justifying circumstance be raised if the felony that is charged is a
culpable felony –
Article 11 – take the place of criminal intent
An incomplete justification under Article 13
(1) Mitigating circumstance – privileged mitigating circumstance
Which ones can become incomplete?
Self defense
Defense of relatives
Defense of stranger
Avoidance of a greater evil? (if 2nd element is not present: pwede)
State of Necessity? NO CANNOT BE INCOMPLETE
Lawful order issued for a lawful purpose? Possible.
Only if he had not been charged with a culpable felony but an intentional
felony
Article 12 – felony still exists but there is no criminal liability
12.1 – Imbecility or insanity
The insane person is qualified by lucid interval. Not exempt if under
the law, he has acted during a lucid interval
DOES NOT DEFINE who is an imbecile or an insane person. Leaves
case law to define that
CRIM LAW: insanity in some form in family law. Succession, sound
mind is also defined very specifically. The same way with insanity for
criminal law.
Exempting circumstance. Insanity – ACTED WITH COMPLETE
DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and WILL.
Unaware of the rightness or wrongness of his act.
Deemed incapable of forming a criminal intent.
The Court limits insanity as having occurred only at the time of the act. Not
before. Not after. According to the Court, at the time of the crime or the
felony, the person must have acted with complete deprivation of freedom,
intelligence or will
If the person understood the consequences of his action then he cannot
have been considered to have been completely deprived of freedom
intelligence or will.
Postponing a pre-trial and the fitness of the person to undergo trial
- 2 different things: person may not have been insane when he
performed the act constituting a felony.
He may be considered as incapable of standing trial. Mental condition may
have prevented him from understanding what is going on. The court will not
proceed with trial. May remand him to the appropriate
At the time of the commission of the felony, and insanity is shown very
specifically by a complete deprivation of freedom, intelligence, and will. 2nd exempting circumstance deals with minority
NOT a medical condition/psychiatric condition. IT IS A LEGAL condition. Age of minority for purposes of exeption:
Below 15: ABSOLUTELY EXEMPT
Is it possible for a person to be insane under Article 12 and not have a 15-18: QUALIFIEDLY
mental organic condition? Yes. If w/ discernment, that person is liable.
While not exempt, privileged mitigating
All you need to do is prove that at the time of the act, the accused was circumstance
completely deprived of freedom, I , w Above 18: NO EXEMPTION

When could the accused have acted under a lucid interval? What does lucid 12(4) ACCIDENT – only instance where there is no civil liability
interval mean? He had will, I, f. not insane. i. Why? Act was lawful

You don’t really need to say How different from Article 4(1)
He was the cause of the cause of the evil cause. Civil law concept of
He was not completely deprived of freedom, intelligence, will. proximate cause. (Bataclan)

For imbecility, the court defines imbecility…complete DEPRIVATION Even if the result is injury, it will not give rise to criminal liability

Feeblemindedness or slowness… Article 12(4) it is a lawful act. No civil liability to be born

Ability, capacity to comprehend the consequences of the act that was done. 12(5)/12(6)
Related concepts
Test for insanity is broaded than the test from which it was taken: In re Irresistible force/ Uncontrollable fear
M’Naghten Deprived of free will.
Incapable of doing anything else
Person is not in a position to do anything else
Irresistible force? Physical force? Will a threat be sufficient? Or will
IS there such a thing as temporary insanity? threat fall under uncontrollable fear?
Actually, no. Can a person act under the impulse of an uncontrollable
Art. 12 actually contemplates a very relative period. It doesn’t fear even if there was no threat?
matter what his condition is. At the time of the act, he must not have had
freedom, will, intelligence Uncontrollable fear of unequal or greater injury
Violence that is exerted would be an irresistible force.
Imbecility and insanity are the same
They exempt the person from criminal liability although there is civil 12(7) felony is a felony by omission. When does a felony by omission arise?
liability that needs to be paid When there is a duty imposed by law.

List of actionable omissions in the outline :D
Omission can be intentional or culpable. Many times people tink
that it is always just culpable. But an omission can also be intentional.
What are some of the omissions?
275 – abandonment of person in danger
Failure to perform an act required by law. If the failure to perform the act is
due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Insuperable – incapable of being overcome
Not in first act -> nothing to do with relationship.
Instigation. Which is always distinguished from entrapment.
Entrapment is a situation where a person has decided to commit a
felony or a crime and the authorities allow the person to commit te crime so
that the person may be arrested
Instigation the criminal intent does not originate from the accused
but it orginates from the authorities. The authorities instigate the person to
commit the crime
Entrapment – not absolutory. From the very start he has decided to commit
the crime

What’s an example? Under Article 125, Instigation – ABSOLUTORY

Needs to waive Article 125.
DISTINGUISH FROM PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT AND PRINCIPAL BY
Article 12(7) – failure to perform a duty required by law. Duty to file fDIRECT PARTICIPATION
or have inquested within the period.
Article 13 – circumstances that affect the penalty
Unable to deliver the person to the inquest prosecutor.

Possible to prove both as having been present? Possible.

Aside from justifying and exempting circumstances. Other circumstances

resulting in no criminal liability being present. Relationship would relieve the
person of criminal liability (accessory) for the 2 nd and the 3rd act of the
accessory.
Art. 19
(1) Act of profiting
(2) Act of concealing
(3) Act of harboring

Relationship translates into an absolutory cause for (2) and (3). Why?
Because it is natural and exempted that if the offender is a relative.
Specifically defined. It is presumed that this person would want to protect
the relative.