EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Exempted from criminal liability

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

1
 2. A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under R.A. 9344.

3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with discernment in
which case, such child shall be subject to appropriate proceedings in accordance with R.A. 9344.

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

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.

Q: In case of exempting circumstances, is there a crime committed?

A: Yes. There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of
the complete absence any of the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness
of the act.

Distinctions between Justifying & Exempting:

Justifying Exempting

>the act is within the bound of the law >the act is criminal

>there is no crime, hence no criminal >there is a crime & a criminal

>since there is no crime, there is no >since there is a crime, there is

Criminal liability & no civil liability a criminal (but exempted) &
Except par. 4 there is a civil liability

>the emphasis of the law is on the >the emphasis is on the actor.

act

Basis: Complete absence of intelligence

Q: What is imbecility? What is insanity?

A: It is a condition of the mind where the offender might be advance in age but the
mental development is comparable to that of a child between two to seven years old.

Insanity – exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing

the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is a
total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude imputability (Pp vs Danao, November 1992)

2
 Note: The burden rests on the accused to establish that fact, for the law presumes every man to
be sane. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insanity, the legal presumption of
one’s sanity stands. (Zosa vs CA, March 1994)

Note: Art. 800 NCC – presumes every person to be of sound mind, in the absence of proof to
the contrary.

Presumption is in favor of sanity --- The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the
time of the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough. Problem:

Q: Rosalino stabbed Mrs. Sigua to death in her office. During trial, he pleaded
insanity and presented several witnesses, including doctors from the National Mental
Hospital, who all said that he was suffering from organic mental disorder secondary
to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. It appears that he was working in Lebanon a
few years back, and in Riyadh a few months after. While he was in Riyadh, he
suffered a stroke. According to the doctors, this event triggered the mental disability
since when he returned to the Philippines, his attitude had changed considerably. The
prosecution claimed that during the commission of the crime, it was a lucid interval
for Rosalino because when he was being treated in the mental hospital, he was
shouting that he killed Mrs. Sigua. Can defense of insanity be appreciated?

A: No. Insanity in our law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence.
The statement of one of the witnesses that the accused knew the nature of what he had
done makes it highly doubtful that he was insane when he committed the act charged.
xxxxx Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order
to acquit the accused. In this case, Rosalino has not successfully discharged the
burden of overcoming the presumption that. he committed the crime as charged
freely, knowingly, and intelligently (People v. Dungo, 199 SCRA 860 and Pp vs
Rafanan, November 1991

Under our jurisdiction, there has been no case that lays down a definite test or criterion for insanity

Two Test:

1. Cognition test or complete deprivation in committing the act

2. Volition test or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will

Q: What is the nature of insanity as a defense?

A: Insanity is a defense in nature of confession and avoidance and as such must be

adequately proved. The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that acts
are done consciously. xxxxx In the

3
 eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act. Proof of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties
will not exclude imputability, if it can be shown that the offender was not completely
deprived of freedom and intelligence (People vs Belonio, May 27, 2004)

Q: What are effects of insanity of the accused? A: The

following are the effects:

(1) At the time of the commission of the crime - exempted

(2) During trial - proceedings suspended until the mental capacity of the accused
is restored to afford him fair trial, accused is committed to a hospital.

(3) After judgment or while serving sentence - execution of judgment is

suspended, the accused is committed to a hospital. The period of confinement in the
hospital is counted for the purpose of the prescription of the penalty.

MINORITY

Note: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code have been amended by RA 9344
(a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1402 and House Bill No. 5065) which was finally passed by
the Senate and House of Representatives on March 22, 2006. RA 9344 took effect on May 21,
2006. Hence, the amendments above stated.

Q: What is discernment?
A: Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
Such capacity may be known and be determined by taking into consideration all the
facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the manner the crime
was committed, and the conduct of the offender after its commission.

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 - RA 9344

Child in conflict with the law — refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.

NOTE: The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/she shall
enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or
older.

4
 MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TREATMENT OF CHILD BELOW AGE OF
RESPONSIBILITY

AGE BRACKET CRIMINAL LIABILITY TREATMENT

15 years old or below Exempt The child shall be subjected to an

intervention program.

Above 15 but blow 18, who acted Exempt The child shall be subjected to an
without discernment intervention program.

Above 15 but below 18, who Not exempted Such child shall be subjected to the
acted with discernment. appropriate proceedings in accordance with
RA 9344.

Note: The exemption from criminal liability in the cases describe above does not include exemption from civil liability
, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

Note: Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and one (1) day
old or above but below eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment
(Revised Rules on Children in Conflict with the Law
–A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

Note: The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority until he/she is
proven to be 18 years old or older. (Section 7, par. 1)

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 conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict
with law under suspended sentence, without need of application; Provided, however, that the
suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. (Sec. 38)

Discernment — mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of an unlawful act. It can
be shown by the manner the crime was committed and the conduct or utterances of the offender
after the commission of the offense.

Status Offenses — 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. (Sec.
57, RA 9344)

Exemption from the Application of Death Penalty — The provisions of the Revised Penal code,
as amended, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as

5
 the and other special laws
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
notwithstanding,
no death penalty shall be imposed upon children in conflict
with the law. (Sec. 59, RA 9344)

Automatic suspension of sentence as provided for in Sec. 38 of R.A. 9344

Once the child who is under 18 years of age at the time of the 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 conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still
be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the
court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule
on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law [A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, Nov. 24, 2009).

No suspension of sentence when the accused was a minor during the commission of the crime
and was already beyond the age of 21yrs. old at the time of pronouncement of his guilt.

While Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still be applied even if
the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence
until the child reaches the maximum age of 21. Hence, the accused, who is now beyond the age
of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of R.A.
9344 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is already moot and academic (People v.
Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011 reiterating People v. Sarcia).

Q: How do you establish that the minor acted with discernment?

A: The manner of committing the crime and the conduct of the offender before,
during and after.

A minor who acts without discernment acts by impulse – no plans. But if it appears
that everything is well coordinated and pre-meditated, it indicates that there is
discernment.

Q: How is age of a child determined?

A: SEC. 7. Determination of Age. — The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy
the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict
with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen
(18) years of age or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth
certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of
these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself,
testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other
relevant

6
 evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in
his/her favor.

In Sierra v. People, SC clarified that testimonial evidence of the accused who claimed the
privilege of the mitigating circumstance of minority may be considered sufficient provided the
following conditions concur, namely: “(1) the absence of any other satisfactory evidence such as
the birth certificate, baptismal certificate, or similar documents that would prove the date of birth
of the accused; (2) the presence of testimony from accused and/or a relative on the age and
minority of the accused at the time of the complained incident without any objection on the part
of the prosecution; and (3) lack of any contrary evidence showing that the accused's and/or his
relatives' testimonies are untrue.” ( People vs Henry Arpon, December 14, 2011)

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY: STATUS OFFENSES AND OFFENSES

NOT
APPLICABLE TO CHILDREN

Exempting provisions under this act

1) Status offenses (Sec. 57) - 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. Example: Curfews for minors

2) Offenses not applicable to children (Sec. 58) - Persons below eighteen

(18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of:

Vagrancy and prostitution under Sec. 202 of RPC

Sniffing of rugby under Presidential Decree No. 1619

NOTE: Under R.A. 10158, Vagrancy has been

decriminalized but prostitution is still a crime.

3) Under Sec 59 with regard to exemption from the application of death penalty.

NOTE: R.A. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the
Philippines

Case: Jerwin Dorado vs People, G.R.No. 216671, October 3, 2016

In 2004, Dorado and two others were charged for the crime of Frustrated Murder for
wounding X during a gang war. Dorado was only 16 years old at that time. In 2006, RA 9344
came into effect. RTC convicted Dorado. CA affirmed it. No determination was made whether
Dorado acted with discernment.

Issue: Whether or not accused Dorado is liable in view of his minority.

SC: Consequently, under R.A. No. 9344, only a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen
( 18) years of age who acted with discernment shall not be exempted from criminal
responsibility. 15 Nevertheless, the said child does not

7
 immediately proceed to trial. Instead, he or she may undergo a diversion, which refers to an
alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of the CICL
without resorting to formal court proceedings. If the diversion is unsuccessful or if the other
grounds provided by law16 are present, then the CICL shall undergo the appropriate preliminary
investigation of his or her criminal case, and trial before the courts may proceed.

Once the CICL is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall not immediately execute its
judgment; rather, it shall place the CICL under suspended sentence. Notably, the suspension
shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen ( 18) years of age or more at the time
of the pronouncement of his or her guilt. During the suspension, the court shall impose the
appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law. If the disposition measures are successful, then the court shall discharge the CICL.
Conversely, if unsuccessful, then the court has the following options: (1) to discharge the child,
(2) to order execution of sentence, or (3) to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.

xxxxxx

Discernment cannot be presumed. xxxxx Considering that there was no determination of

discernment by the trial court, the Court cannot rule with certainty that Dorado was criminally
responsible. As earlier stated, there can be no presumption of discernment on the part of the
CICL. In the absence of such determination, it should be presumed that the CICL acted without
discernment.

ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR

INTENTION OF CAUSING IT
(DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA.

Conditions necessary to exempt a person from liability under subsection 4 of Article 12 of

RPC
1. That the act causing the injury be lawful; that is, permitted not only by law but also by
regulations.
2. That it be performed with due care.
3. That the injury be caused by mere accident, i.e., by an unforeseen event.
4. That there be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
Note: If not all the conditions necessary are present to exempt from liability, the act should be
considered as: Reckless imprudence, if the act is executed without taking those precautions of
measures which the most common prudence would require; or Simple imprudence, if it is a
mere lack of precaution in those cases where either the threatened harm is not imminent or the
danger is not openly visible.

Accident

An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. It
presupposes a lack of intention to commit the wrong done.

8
 Problem:

Q: A and B are both security guards. A turned-over to 3 a service firearm who held it
with both hands, with the muzzle pointed at A and the butt towards B. At that
moment, B held opposite the muzzle of the gun where the trigger is, and almost slip
with it while in the act of gripping and then immediately the gun went off and
accidentally shot A. A was able to recover from the shot. B was then charged with
frustrated homicide. Can B raised the defense of accident to mitigate his liability?

A: No. It is axiomatic that a person who invokes accident must prove that he acted
with due care. This was belied by the conduct of the accused when he allegedly
received the shotgun from the private complainant. As he himself admitted, he
received the shotgun by placing his pointer finger, also known as trigger finger
because it is used to squeeze the trigger, inside the trigger guard and over the trigger
itself. Worse, he did so while the barrel of the gun was pointed at the private
complainant. According to him, he knew that it was not proper for a person to receive
a firearm from another by immediately inserting a finger inside the trigger guard.
Likewise, he knew that the hand-over of a firearm with its barrel pointed the giver or
any other person was not proper. That he did these improper acts despite his training
and experience as a security guard undermines any notion that he had acted with due
c a r e d u r i n g t h e subject incident (People v. Lanuza G. R. No. 188562, August
17, 2011)

COMPULSION OF IRRISTIBLE FORCE

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

Requisites of compulsion of irresistible force

1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person

Nature of physical force required by par. 5

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 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 (People of the Philippines v. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311).

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Requisites of uncontrollable fear

9
 (1) Threat, which causes the fear, is of an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which he is required to commit.

(2) It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it.

Elements of uncontrollable fear

1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear

2) Fear must be real and imminent
3) Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed

NOTE: A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.

In case of uncontrollable fear, it is necessary that the threat that caused the
uncontrollable fear on the offender must be present, clear and personal. It must not only
be/merely an imagined threat or court Interfered threat.

IRRESISTIBLE UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

FORCE
A person is A person is compelled by another to
compelled by commit a crime by means of intimidation
another to commit
a crime by means or threat.
of violence or
physical force.
The irresistible The uncontrollable fear may be
force must have generated by a threatened act directed to
been made to a third person such as the wife of the
operate directly accused who was kidnapped, but the evil
upon the person of feared must be greater or at least equal
the accused and to the damage caused to avoid it.
the injury feared
may be of a lesser
degree than the
damage caused by
the accused.

NOTE: The person who used the force or created the fear is criminally and primarily civilly liable, but the
accused who performed the act involuntarily and under duress is still secondarily civilly liable (Art. 101).

Distinction between Irresistible force vs Uncontrollable fear.

PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE

10
 Insuperable cause ---- Some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically
prevented a person to do what the law commands.

Requisites under this exempting circumstance

1. An act is required by law to be done.

2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

11