LESSON 11: CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY - Exempting Circumstances

Exempting circumstances - (non-imputability) are those grounds which free the offender
from criminal liability but does not relieve him of civil liability except in paragraph 4 where he is
both relieved from civil and criminal responsibility.

It means that a crime has been committed but the person of the accused is not
subjected to criminal liability. The basis of this exemption is complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

These exempting circumstances are:

1. Imbecility or insanity, unless acted during lucid interval

Imbecility - exists when a person, while of advanced age, has a mental development
comparable to that of children aged two (2) and seven (7) years of age.

Insanity - means that there is a complete

deprivation of intelligence or freedom of the
will. The person acted without the least
discernment because there is a complete
absence of the power to discern.

Lucid interval means that the offender acted

with intelligence or discernment.

An insane person is not so exempt if it can be

proven that he acted during his lucid moment
or sane moment. However, an imbecile will always be exempted in all cases of criminal
liability.

The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of
the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Example:

A person suffering from dementia praecox or schizophrenia is considered an insane

person where homicidal attack is common because of delusions that he is being
 attacked sexually or physically or that his property is taken. During the period of
excitement, such person has no control of his acts.

2. Minority (in relation to to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 or RA 9344)

Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability

The basis of this exemption is complete

absence or lack of intelligence.

Child - a person under eighteen (18) years of

age

Child in conflict with the law - is a child who is

alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine Laws.

Neglected child - a child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of
age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal
detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or occupants
is killed or raped or offenses under RA 9165 punishable by more than twelve (12) years of
imprisonment

Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

a. Child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. The child, however, shall be subject
to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of RA 9344.

If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned to the court
for the promulgation of the decision against the minor; and then the court shall
either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention.

If it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15) years or
below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child, in
consultation with the local DSWD officer, has the duty to immediately release the
child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the
child’s nearest relative. The child shall be subjected to community-based
intervention program supervised by the local DSWD officer, unless the best interest
 of the child requires the referral of the child to a youth care facility or ‘Bahay
Pag-asa” managed by LGUs or licensed and/or accredited NGOs monitored by
the DSWD.

b. Child above fifteen (15) years of age but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
be exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted with discernment.

Discernment - is that mental capacity of a minor to fully

appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity
may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the
records in each case. (People of the Philippines vs. Hermie Jacinto
G.R. No. 182239 March 16, 2011)

After initial investigation, the local social worker may:

a. Proceed with intervention if a child is 15 years or below or above 15 but
below 18 years old who acted without discernment.
b. If the child is above 15 years of age but below eighteen years and who
acted with discernment, proceed to diversion under the following without
undergoing court proceedings subject to the following conditions:
i. Where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years, the Punong
Barangay or law enforcement officer shall conduct mediation,
family conferencing and conciliation.
ii. Where the imposable penalty exceeds 6 years imprisonment,
diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court.

Automatic suspension of sentence - once the child who is under 18 years of age
at the time of commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court
shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense
committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of the conviction, the court
shall place the child in conflict with law under suspended sentence, without need of
application and impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the
Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.

Status offenses - refers to any conduct not considered an offense or not

penalized if committed by an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be
punished if committed by a child.
 Offenses not applicable to children - persons below 18 years of age shall be
exempt from prosecution for the following crime, provided that they shall undergo
appropriate counselling and treatment program:
a. Vagrancy exists when any person is found
loitering about public places or wandering
about the streets without visible means of
support (Decriminalize as per RA 10158)
b. Prostitution - it is an act of women who, for
money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct.
c. Mendicancy - refers to the condition of any
person who has no visible and legal means of
support, or lawful employment and who is
physically able to work but neglects to apply
himself to some lawful calling and instead uses
begging as a means of living.
d. Sniffing of rugby

3. Accident without fault or intention of causing it

The basis of this exemption is lack of negligence and intent.

Accident is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences. It connotes the absence of criminal intent.

If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.

Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. With due care
c. He causes injury to another by mere accident
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.

Example:
 A chauffeur, while driving his automobile on the proper side of the road at a moderate
speed and with due diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle
coming from the sidewalk and crossing the street without any warning that he would do so.
Because it was not physically possible to avoid hitting him, the said chauffeur ran over the man
with his car. It was held that he was not criminally liable, it being a mere accident. (U.S. v.
Tayongtong, 21 Phil. 476)

4. Irresistible force

The basis of this exemption is complete absence of freedom.

Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by
means of physical force
b. That the physical force must
be irresistible
c. That the physical force must
come from a third person.

Irresistible force - It is a degree of force which is external or physical force which reduces
the person to a mere instrument and the acts produced are done without his will and against his
will.

Example:

Baculi, who was not a member of the band which murdered some American
school teachers, was in a plantation gathering bananas. Upon hearing the shooting, he
ran. However, Baculi 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. Is he liable as an
accessory to the crime of crime? It was held that Baculi was not criminally liable as
accessory for concealing the body of the crime of murder committed by the band
because he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force. (U.S. vs. Caballeros, 4
Phil. 350)

5. Uncontrollable fear

The basis of this exemption is complete absence of freedom. Actus me invito non est
meus actus - An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Elements:
 a. The existence of an uncontrollable fear
b. That the fear must be real and imminent
c. The fear of an injury is greater than, or at least equal to, that committed

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

A person is compelled by A person is compelled by

another to commit a crime by another to commit a crime by
means of violence or physical means of intimidation or threat.
force.

6. Prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause

The basis of this exemption is the absence of intent.

Insuperable cause is some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically prevented a
person to do what the law commands.

It applies to the felonies by omission.

Elements:
a. An act is required by law to be done.
b. A person fails to perform such act.
c. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

Examples:

Juan is a Punong Barangay. He arrested Pedro without warrant for an alleged

crime of rape. Pursuant to Article 125 of the RPC, the crime of rape should be filed
against Pedro within its reglemantary perior as provided otherwise Juan could be
charged of said Article 125 for failure to deliver the person arrested without warrant to
proper judical authority. However, the barangay of Juan is located several mountains
aways from the prosecutor’s office and he has to cross seven rivers with a carabao only
as his means of transportation to the said office that will conduct the inquest
proceedings. Considering the distance, Juan was able to bring Pedro to the Prosecutor’s
office long after the lapse of reglementary period provided by Article 125. Pedro
charged Juan for violation of Article 125. Will it prosper?
 No, because Juan is prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause, that is the
distance he has to travel. It is impossible for him to comply with the requirements imposed
by Article 125. (Gabao, 2013)

Absolutory Cause - those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment, there is no penalty.

Examples:

1. Article 219 - Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence of ward by their

guardian is not penalized.
2. Article 20 - Accessory is a relative of the principal.
3. Article 332 - Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a
relative.
4. Article 344 - Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed
is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness.
5. Article 247 - When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person
who surprised his/her spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person.
6. Article 280 par. 2 - Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another’s
dwelling against the latter’s will is to prevent some serious harm to himself, the occupants
of the dwelling or a third person, or for the purposes of rendering some services to
humanity or justice, or when entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while
the same are open.
7. Instigation

Instigation Entrapment

The act of a law enforcer who The employment of means and ways
entices the person arrested to by the law enforcement officer in
basically commit a crime order to arrest or apprehend a law
violator or suspect

The law enforcement officer is The law enforcement officer is not

criminally liable criminally liable

The person arrested is not criminally The person arrested is criminally

liable because the criminal design liable because the criminal design or
and criminal act did not originate criminal act originated from him
from him, but the law enforcement
officer. Thus, by reason of public
policy, he is not criminally liable