Art 12

Exempting Circumstances

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
 When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is liable
criminally. The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental capacity ofthe accused be restored to afford him a fair
trial.
 The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution. If the evi- dence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.
 Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity (formerly called schizophrenia)
 kleptomania is only a mitigating circumstance
 Where the accused claimed that he was an epileptic but it was not shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic
fit when he committed the offense, he is not exempt from criminal liability.
 feeblemindedness is not exempting,
 pedophilia is not exempting
 ammesia is not proof of mental condition of accused

Other cases of lack of intelligence

 Committing a crime while in a dream.
 Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria.

 The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete absence of intelligence, an element of
voluntariness.

Par. 2. — A person under nine years of age.

Par. 3. — A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
 must have acted with discernment to incur criminal liability.
 Discernment may be shown by (1) the manner the crime was committed, or (2) the conduct of the offender after its com-
mission.
 The allegation of "with intent to kill" in the information is sufficient allegation of discernment.

 The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 ofArt. 12 is based also on the complete absence of intelligence.

Par. 4. — Any person who, while /performing a lawful act /with due care,/ causes an injury by mere accident /without
fault or intention of causing it.

 The exempting circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 is based on lack of negligence and intent. Under this circumstance,
a person does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable felony.

Par. 5. — Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime.
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
3. That the physical force must come from a third person.
 The pretension of an accused that he was threatened with a gun by his friend, the mastermind, is not credible where he
himself was armed with a rifle.
 The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. coming from a third person.
 The exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 ofArt. 12 is based on the complete absence of freedom, an element of
voluntariness.
 The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a
well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough.
The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.

Par. 6. — Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Elements:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to com- mit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur:
(a) existence of an uncontrollable fear;
(b) the fear must be real and imminent; and
(c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

 Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb and should not be
speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
 Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he had wanted to or to resist any possible
aggression because he was also armed.
 A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
 In the eyes of the law, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate death.
 Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear.
 Actus me invito factus non est meus actus." ("An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Par. 7. — Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause.
Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

 The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 exempts the accused from criminal liability, because he acts without intent,
the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.
 Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is
no penalty imposed.
 Instigation is an absolutory cause. (when accused was induced) a case where an innocent person is induced to commit a
crime merely to prosecute him
 Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
 Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability.
The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage (Art. 6), and no crime under another provision of the Code or other penal
law is committed.
b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or property. (Art. 7)
c. The accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art. 20)
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention. (Art. 124)
e. Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)
f. The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed against a relative. (Art. 332)
g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the act
of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)
h. Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of
lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
i. Instigation.

ff