Chapter Three CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances: 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2, That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80. [repealed] 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindi- cation of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. 144crcumsts "ANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY 10. And, finally, an: ji fe nature and analogous y other circumstance of a similar to those above mentioned. What are mitigating circumstances? {itigating circumstances show the lesser perversity of the for the offense. e effect of lowering the penalty prescribed be alleged i: . *ey are matters: of defense which do not have to > alleged in the Information. Article 13 enumerates ordinary mitigating circumstances. Unlike aggravating circumstances, Article 13 allows analo : un gous circ offender's liability. umstances to mitigate the offen: 2 There are circumstances, too, which have the effect of re- ducing the penalty but are not included in this article and are also called extenuating circumstances. Examples are conceal- ment of dishonor on the part of the mother in infanticide and abandonment of the wife by the husband in adultery. What is the rationale for mitigating circumstances? The rationale behind the whole concept of mitigating circumstance is to show mercy and some extent of leniency in favor of an accused who has shown lesser perversity in the commission of an offense. Where the evidence on record bespeaks of vileness and depravity, no mercy or leniency should be accorded an accused who should be made to suffer in full for acts perpetrated with complete voluntariness and intent for their tragic consequences. (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014) What are the classifications of mitigating circumstances? -dinary — those that lower the divisible penalty to the a Ondine period in Article 13 as well as extenuating circumstances for specific felonies where the divisible penalty is Jowered to the minimum period. ivil i le penalty, whether ed — lowers the imposabl brie or indivisible, by one or more degrees. -¢. _ applies to a specific felony like concealment of Specipe— spp ase of abortion by the pregnant woman ois ao These circumstances can either be ordinary or Bee depending upon the effect on the penalty. privileged 145DE NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CO! Distinguish ordinary from privileged mitigating circumstances, .|Cannot be offset by 1. Can be offset by a gener- i s i¢ aggravating circum- aggravating circumstance stance 2. Penalty is lowered to the minimum period of the penalty prescribed 3. Not considered when penalty prescribed is single and indivisible Penalty is lowered by one or two degrees ‘Always considered whether the penalty imposable is divisible or indivisible Mitigating circumstances are personal to an accused in whose favor they exist and cannot be enjoyed by his co- accused. RR, being below 18 at the time he committed the crime, is entitled to the privileged circumstance of minority notwithstanding that the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua. (People v. Barreta, G.R. No. 120367, October 16, 2000) Paragraph 2 of Article 63 states that when what is im- posed on the convict is a penalty made up of two indivisible penalties, ordinary mitigating circumstance shall operate to bring down the penalty to the minimum. R.A. 9346 banned the imposition of the death penalty, thus said provision is inop- erable. There is now only one indivisible penalty of reclusion Perpetua. _ Ordinary mitigating lowers the penalty to the minimum period. As an exception, where there are two ordinary mitigat- ing with no aggravating circumstance attendant, Article 64(5) allows the penalty is to be lowered by one degree, Incomplete justifying or exempting circu; a . What are the requirements for the miti of incomplete justification/exemption to ee ee are el ee justification of defense, there must defend and conan eeression otherwise there is nothing #0 “avently no occasion to justify the act in defense 146CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY of self or relatives or strangers. Without unlawful aggression, there is neither complete nor incomplete defense. In accident, the requisites of due care and lack of fault are indispensable without which negligence will be present giving rise to culpable felony. If the requisites of lawful act and lack of intention of causing the injury are absent, an intentional act results taking the case out of the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. When is incomplete defense ordinary mitigating? When privileged? Unlawful aggression is indispensable in self-defense, complete or otherwise. When unlawful aggression alone is proved, such incomplete self-defense is appreciated as ordinary mitigating under Article 13(1). When it is combined with another element, such incomplete self-defense becomes privileged mitigating under Article 69. Article 69 which provides for the imposition of a penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law where the killing is not wholly excusable applies only where a majority of the conditions required to justify a criminal act or to exempt from liability are present. (People v. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996) It is necessary that there be present majority of the elements of the circumstance for Article 69 to apply. When the circumstance requires only two elements, the presence of one is considered a majority. This is privileged mitigating which cannot be offset by any aggravating circumstance and is considered even if the penalty prescribed is single and indivisible under paragraph 1 of Article 63. If there is only one or less than majority of the elements present, the incompleteness is an ordinary mitigating circums- tance under Article 13 and as such can be offset by a generic aggravating circumstance. 's unlawful aggression a mitigating circumstance? No. Any first year law student knows that unlawful @ggression is not mitigating. (Estoya v. Singson, A.M. RT.J. 91-758, September 1994) It is incomplete self-defense that is mitigating, not unlawful aggression which is a mere but 147NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE indispensable component of defense of self, of relatives or of strangers. Minority What amendment was introduced by P.D. 603 on Article 80? Article 189 of P.D. 603 modified Article 80 of the RPC on suspension of sentence not Article 13(2) which treats of minority as a mitigating circumstance. Thus, for minority to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the offender must be under 18 years of age at the time the crime was committed. (Id.) But even then, minority is never ordinary mitigating notwithstanding its inclusion in Article 13 because Article 68 mandates that minority should always lower the penalty one or two degrees. P.D. 603 has been modified by R.A. 9344 in that minority up to age 15 in an absolute exempting circumstance Article 13(2) and Article 68 have been affected accordingly. What is the nature of minority as a mitigating circumstance? It is never an ordinary mitigating; it is always privileged mitigating because: a, Article 47 dictates that if the death penalty is imposable, the penalty will be lowered to reclusion perpetua; b. R.A. 9344 mandates that if the minor is 15 or under, he shall be exempt from criminal liability; and ¢. Article 68(2) in relation to R.A. 9344 requires that if the minor is over 15 but under 18 and he acted with discernment he shall be entitled to a reduction of penalty to the next lower penalty but in the proper period. All of these provisions have been modified b: 44 and R.A. 9346. Se eee Penal laws should be liberally construed in favor of the offender. Accordingly, minority should be appreciated in favor of DC who was clearly a minor when he committed the offense, 148CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LABILITY 8 spect to DC can be ict of his minority is established by an official document Prepared by the Department of lopment in mero motu. (People v. Regalario, G.R. No. 1 1993) ° its consequences. Lack of intent grave a wrong is shown by the means employed by the accused, the nature and the location of the wound. Praeter intentionem should be appreciated where the accused had no intent to kill but only to inflict injuries when he attacked the victim. (People v. Flores, supra) When can praeter intentionem not be invoked? Praeter intentionem cannot be invoked if the acts of the accused are sufficient to bring about the result intended or when the means employed would naturally result to the felony committed. It does not apply to culpa or to crimes not involving intent. The word “intentionem” denotes intentional felonies. The Anti-Hazing Law express prohibits the application of this circumstance in favor of the offender. Likewise, the Anti- Torture Law disallows any provision or law that will depreciate the seriousness of the offense of torture and this should include praeter intentionem.NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE Sufficient Provocation What are the requirements for sufficient provocation? The provocation must be: (a) sufficient; (b) immediate to the commission of the crime; and (c) must originate from the offended party. Provocation is immediate if no interval of time elapsed between the provocation and the commission of the crime. (Pagal, 79 SCRA 570) (See notes under self-defense on the comparison between provocation as an element of self- defense and as a mitigating circumstance.] Sufficient provocation could not mitigate the criminal liability of PP. He cannot claim that he was provoked by OO when the latter ran away from him because, the victim feared for his life having been beaten up twice by his assailants that evening. To flee when danger lurks is human and can never be regarded as a source of provocation sufficient to come within the ambit of the law. In fact, when an offended party flees from his aggressor, the latter has no reason to pursue and attack him. (Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994) Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense . Must the “offense” in immediate vindication be a crime? No, it may be any act or event which offends the accused causing mental agony to him and moves him to vindicate himself of such offense. For instance, insulting an old man (Ampar, 37 Phil. 301), or eloping with the offender’s daughter. (Diokno, 63 Phil. 601) How should the word “immediate” be understood? “Immediate” means proximate and allows for a lapse of time as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental agony caused by the “offense” to him. (Parana, 64 Phil. 331) It is unlike sufficient provocation where there should be no lapse of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime. This circumstance cannot be considered in favor of one who had sufficient time to recover his serenity.cae CUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY BB sh pee ee should be credited with this circumstance for killing leceased who attem inst his wife’s vi pted against his wife's virtue and at- eet Person. While the law speaks of an “immediate” ion of a grave offense, the same should be understood pole “proximate.” (Babor, G.R. No. 106875, September 24, Passion and Obfuscation * What is necessary for passion or obfuscation to be considered? In order to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the following elements should concur: (1) there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (2) the act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to overcome reason and self- control. There is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. In asking the appellant to leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is an absolute lack of proof that the appellant was utterly humiliated by the victim’s utterance or that the victim made that remark jn an insulting and repugnant manner. The victim's utterance was not the stimulus required by jurisprudence to be so overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint. (People v. Lab-eo, infra.) For instance, a person who maintains an illicit relation- ship with the wife of another is courting the passion or obfusca- tion of the husband because his having an affair with the wife is unjust and sufficient to make the passion of the husband arise, As the relationship of the husband and the wife is legiti- arate, the passion or obfuscation of the husband would result from lawful sentiments. 151NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE When is passion and obfuscation not appreciated? The court will not appreciate passion and obfuscation where the anger did not arise from lawful sentiments. The delay of FF in obeying EE’s request is too trivial a matter as to fairly and justly cause such over reaction of EE. (Id.) This circumstance cannot co-exist with treachery or evident premeditation because passion or obfuscation must be a spur of the moment. It cannot be appreciated if the acts of the accused were done in the spirit of revenge and lawlessness, for which no mitigating circumstance can arise. (Prople v. CA, G.R. No. 103613, February 23, 2001) It cannot be claimed in addition to vindication of grave offense if the two circumstances arose from the same cause. Will injury resulting from a quarrel constitute passion or obfus- cation? No. To be mitigating, passion and obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and unreason that naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control. The excitement which is inherent in all Persons who quarrel does not constitute obfuscation. (Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999) For battered women, there is also the circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation. This state of mind is present when a crime is the result of an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason, as in acute battering incident. (Genosa, supra) How further should the act that produces passion or obfusca- tion be from the commission of the crime? ‘The act producing obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have regained his normal equanimity. Thus, where at least half an hour elapsed between 152CIRCUMSTANCES MSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL ABILITY the previous fight and the killi . the benefit of hbanceton killing, the accused cannot be given In this case, 30 minutes intervened between the fistfight and i Killing. The attack cannot, therefore, be the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. Having been actuated more by the spirit of revenge or by anger and resentment for having been publicly berated by MM, RR cannot be credited with this extenuating circumstance. (Rabanillo) Compare sufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation. These three mitigating circumstances are based on the same ground — the overwhelming emotion that blinds a person or causes him to lose reason and equanimity. Thus, the offender cannot be credited with three mitigating circumstances but only one if all of these are invoked in a case. But they can co- exist with psychological paralysis pursuant to Genosa. Voluntary Surrender * What are the elements of voluntary surrender? a. The offender surrendered to a person in authority or his agent; b. The offender surrendered before arrest is effected; and The surrender must be voluntary, i.e., spontaneous and must show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. GR. No. 135551, October 27, 2000 added a that there is no reading ya a arrest i n AA learned that the police were i him aed ee aiataly went to the police station where looking sake ‘to killing SS in self-defense. However, the said e i does not constitute as & mitigating circumstance for oa tend f his surrender, he had a pending warrant of arrest ie ogi age before. His arrest by that time was imminent. iss Taraya, fourth requisite, 153NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE De Vera v. De Vera, G.R. No. 172832, April 7, 2009, clarified that the mere filing of an Information and/or the issuance of a warrant will not automatically make the surrender “involuntary.” Oco, 458 SCRA 815, appreciated voluntary surrender because immediately upon learning that a warrant for his arrest was issued, and without the same having been served on him, OO surrendered to the police. Notwithstanding the pendency of said warrant, he may still be entitled to the mitigating circumstance, depending on the actual facts surrounding the very act of giving himself up. Voluntary surrender is present even if the accused sur- rendered one week after the crime. The fact is they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest could be effected. (Ama- guin, G.R. Nos, 54844-45, January 10, 1994) What determines whether the surrender is voluntary? The surrender must be spontaneous and deliberate —there must be intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. Since it was the police officer who went looking for the accused immediately after obtaining information from eye witnesses as to who had perpetrated the crime, even if he did not resist arrest or deny his criminal act, this cannot be equated with voluntary surrender. (Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318, April 13, 1999) The day following the killing, MM surrendered to the Provincial Commander. That the latter announced over the radio that he would issue a “shoot to kill” order unless MM voluntarily surrenders, and that he was persuaded to surrender by his employer do not militate against the consideration of his voluntary surrender. The stubborn fact was he was not arrested and that he presented himself to the PC to surrender. (Morato, G.R. Nos. 95358-59, July 5, 1993) [Whether a “shoot to kill” order is legal is another story. There is no death penalty and accused has not been tried and convicted.] Voluntary surrender should have been considered, for immediately after slaying CC, accused walked all the way straight to the Police Station to surrender. (Curaraton, G.R. No. 96765, July 5, 1993) 7 154cIRCUM: ISTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY That AA admitted mi does nobystract buns surrendering because of fear of reprisal the spontanei i fact th ity of his surrender and the of cada 7 a saved the government of the time and trouble 2001) "The fi for him. (Amazan, G.R. No. 136251, January 16, the tine oF ms that AM yielded his weapon to his superior at ‘e of the incident, albeit with some persuasion from the latter, should be considered in hi i NOS Merase ce red in his favor. (Amion, G.R. No. Who should surrender? The offender himself should surrender. Where he did not submit himself to the authorities investigating the commission of the crime, and it was his superior who surrendered him to the custody of the court, such is not the voluntary surrender ooh by law. (Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of accused to give up and submit unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Here, it was AM’s commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court. Being restrained by one’s superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned is not tantamount to voluntary surrender. (Id.) Voluntary plea of guilt What are the elements of voluntary plea of guilt? Voluntary plea of guilt must be made: (1) in open court; (2) spontaneously and unconditionally; and (3) prior to the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution. ‘An extrajudicial confession is not within the concept of yh lea of guilt because it is not made in open court. NONPASEY 2 iginal jurisdiction because it must ust be one of ori ecause it ee Oa the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, mi hich means that the case 18 being tried for the first time. which me 155NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE Likewise, the court must be possessed with jurisdiction to hear and decide the case for, if the court is acting without jurisdiction, all proceedings there are void for lack of jurisdiction, including the taking of the plea of the accused. Why is voluntary plea of guilt mitigating? Because it is an act of repentance and respect for the law, indicating a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his reform. What is the effect of an improvident plea of guilt? ‘The accused must be acquitted if the only evidence of his guilt is his improvident plea due to the prodding of PAO lawyer. (Mendoza, G.R. No. 80845, March 1994) May voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender be both considered in the same case? Yes, for they are separate and distinct from each other. They do not arise out of the same facts and circumstances, hence, will entitle the offender to two mitigating circumstances when both are present. Relate voluntary plea of guilt to plea bargaining. When accused did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty, he did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed. This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, he should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded. It is the essence of a plea of guilty that the accused admits absolutely and unconditionally his guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to him. Hence, he may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him. (Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000) For voluntary confession to be appreciated it must not only be unconditional but the accused must admit to the offense charged. (Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001) 156" CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MiTiGaTE CRIMINAL LIABILITY Physical defects and illness What is required for the defect Of the offender to be mitigating? The offender's being deaf and dumb or blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect must relate to the offense because the law requires that the defect has the effect of restricting his means of action, defense, or communication to his fellow beings. The illness or defect is the contributory cause that moved him to commit the offense. Thus, rape committed by a deaf and dumb on the girl of his dreams to whom he cannot convey his feelings will mitigate his liability unless the circumstances justify the imposition of a single indivisible penalty where modifying circumstances have no effect. The fact that DD suffers from a physical defect, a severed left hand does not automatically mean that he should be credited with this circumstance. In order for this condition to be appreciated, it must be shown that such physical defect limits his means of communication with his fellow beings to such an extent that he did not have complete freedom of action, consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness. Such cannot be appreciated where DD's physical condition clearly did not limit his means of action, defense or communication, nor affect his free will. Despite his handicap, DD managed to attack, overcome, and fatally stab his victim. The fact that he had only one hand in no way limited his freedom of action to commit the crime. (Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996) What is necessary for illness to be considered? The illness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts; otherwise he will be exempt from criminal liability. (Rafanan, supra) The defect or illness must be contributory to the commis- sion of the crime. Without such relation, the defect or illness shall not be considered. Analogous circumstances Js being a non-Christian an analogous mitigating circumstance? iati u lies within the appreciation of this circumstance sounds Saeuicn of the trial court considering all the facets of the 187NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE case that would best serve the interest of justice. Even if their formal education be ignored, such attenuating circumstance is nonetheless unavailing. The fact that defendants belong to the cultural minorities cannot reduce from the subjective point of view the defendants’ awareness of the gravity of their offense for robbery and killing are by their very nature just as wrong to the ignorant as they are to the enlightened. Whatever may be the religious or cultural affiliation of a person, heinous crimes are universally regarded as evil. Membership in a cultural minority is not expressly mentioned among the mitigating circumstances, nor would it be of a similar nature and analogous to those circumstances mentioned. (People v. Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, November 6, 1981) Is extreme poverty an analogous mitigating circumstance? Extreme poverty is not among the circumstances enumerated in Article 13 and it is doubtful whether it may be considered similar or analogous to those mentioned in said peice (Gallardo v. Tabamo, Jr, AM. RTJ-92-881, June 2, ) Cite some examples of analogous circumstances. Restitution in malversation of public funds analogous to voluntary plea of guilty. (Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994) 7 Taking voluntarily the cow to the municipal hall to place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus save them the trouble of recovering the cow, can be analogous to voluntary surrender. (Canta, G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001) Psychological paralysis is analogous to illness that diminish consciousness of one’s acts. (Genosa, supra)