COURSE MODULE WEEK

11
PEDRO G. OYA IV
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES. ART. 12
 Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability.- The
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or insane person has committed an act which the
law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in
one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted,
which he shall not be permitted for persons hus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.

2. A person under nine years of age.

 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall proceed
against in accordance with the provision of Art 80 of this code.
 When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the
court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the preceding
paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education;
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or
perron mention in the said Article 80.
 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
cause an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
 6. Any person who act 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 or insuperable cause.
In exempting circumstances, there is
crime committed but no criminal liability

 Technically, one who act by virtue of the exempting circumstances

commits a crime, although by the complete absence of any of the
condition which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act
no criminal liability arise.
 Burden of proof
Any of the circumstances mention in Art. 12 is a matter of defense
and the same must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of
the court.
An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
acted during a lucid interval.

 Imbecility vs. Insanity

 This paragraph establishes the distinction between imbecility and
insanity, because while the imbecile is exempt in all cases from
criminal liability, the insane is not exempt if it can shown that he
acted during lucid interval.
 During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.
 Basis of paragraph 1
 The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility on the
complete absence of intelligence, an element voluntariness.
A person under nine years of age.
 “Under nine years “ to be construed “nine years or less”
 The phrase “under nine years” should be construed “nine years or
less” as may be inferred from the next subsequent paragraph which
does not totally exempt a person “over nine years of age” if he
acted with discernment. ( Guevara ;See Art189, P.D. No. 603)
 Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age
 Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as “ Juvenile Justice and
welfare Act of 2006 raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from
nine to 15 yrs. of age.
 Basis
 The exempting circumstance is based also on the complete
absence of intelligence.
 . A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall proceed
against in accordance with the provision of Art 80 of this code.
 Paragraph 3, Art.12 of the R. P. C. repealed by the provision of R.A
9344 declaring a child 15 yrs. of age or under exempt from criminal
liability.
 Periods of criminal responsibility
Thus under the Code as amended by R.A. 9344 ( Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006), the life being of human being is divided into four
periods:
1. The age of absolute irresponsibility- 15 yrs. and below
2. The age of conditional responsibility- 15 yrs. And 1 day to 18yrs.
3. The age of mitigated responsibility- 15 yrs. and 1 day to 18 yrs. the
offender acting with discernment; over 70 yrs of age.
  Hence senility which is the age over 70years, although said to be the
second childhood , is only a mitigated responsibility. In cannot be
considered as to infancy which is exempting.
 Child in conflict with the law
 Child in conflict with the law is a person who t the time of the
commission of the offense is below 18 years old but not less that 15
years and one day old.
 Meaning of discernment.
 Discernment means the of the child at the time of the commission of the
offense to understand the differences between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act.
 Determination of discernment.
 The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of child
to understand the ,moral and psychological components of criminal
responsibility and the consequences of wrongful act; and whether a child
can be held responsible for essentially anti social behavior.
 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, cause
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
 Elements:
 1. A person performing lawful act;
 2. with due care
 3. He causes an injury to a other by mere accident
 4. Without fault on intention of causing it.
 What is an accident?
 An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our
will, and although it comes about some act of our will lies
beyond of humanly foreseeable consequences.
 Ifthe consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will a case of
negligence.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force.
 This exempting circumstances presupposes that a perso is
compelled by means of force or violence to commit 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
Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it ,must
produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of resistance of
the person on whom it operates, it compels his members to act and his
mind to obey. Such a force can never consist in anything which springs
primarily from the man himself; it must be a force which act upon him
from outside and by a third person.
6. Any person who act under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.

 This exempting circumstances also presupposes that a person is compelled

to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation
or threat, not force or violence.
 Elements:
 1. That the threat which causes the fear is of greater evil than or at least equal
to, that which he is required to commit;
 2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would succumbed to it,
 Nature of duress as valid defense;
 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.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
law when prevented by some 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
 Basis of paragraph 7
 The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Article 12 exempts the accused
from criminal liability, because he acts without intent, the third
condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.