Module 5 in Crim Law.2nd Sem

Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)
MODULE 5
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 State and explain the circumstances

affecting criminal liability of a person.
LESSON 1
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability
IMPUTABILITY – Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as

its author or owner. It is implies that the act committed has been freely and conciously done
and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
RESPONSIBILITY – Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime.

It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime.
IMPUTABILITY DISTINGUISHED FROM RESPONSIBILITY
Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that
the person must take the consequences of such deed.
What is “guilt”?
GUILT is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
I. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1) Definition
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in

accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is
free from both criminal and civil liability.
1
2) Basis of justifying circumstances
The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in the opening
sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal liability.”
The following do not incur any liability;
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the eperson defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consaguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first
and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that
the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the devil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful mans of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The circumstances mentioned in Art..11 are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon
the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, prove the justifying circumstances claimed by
him to the satisfaction of the court.
2
Par. 1- SELF- DEFENSE
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes sel-defense, it is incumbent
upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in defense of himself.
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the eperson defending himself.
RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the eone assaulted
but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
REASONS WHY PENAL LAW MAKESSELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL
Because it would be quite possible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon
citizens ( and even foreigners, of course) and offer protectionto the person unjustly attacked.
REQUISITES OF SELF DEFENSE
Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an

immediate kind.
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out of materialized or
at the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely
threatening stance or posture.
PERILE TO ONE’S LIFE
1. Actual – that the danger must be presaent, that is, actually in existence.
2. Imminent – that the danger os on the point of happineng. It is not required that the attack
already begins,, for it may be too late.
PERILE OT ONE’S LIMB
3
The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his body, in which case
there is danger to his life; or with a less daedly weapon or any other weapon that can cause
minor or physical injuries only,, aimed at other parts of the body, in which case, there is
danger only to his limb.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETALIATION AND SELF DEFENSE
In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him. In sel-defense, the aggression was still existing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making defense.
REMENBER: When the killing of the deceased by the accused was after the attack made
by the deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool
thinking.
The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
Although the accused was unalwfully attacked, nevertheless, the aggressor was not the
deceased but another person. Consequently, this unlawful aggression cannot be considered
in this case as an element of self defense because, in order to constitute an element of self
defense, the unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly form the person who was
subsequnetlyattacked by the accused.
REASON FOR THE RULE
Where the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonist is at once assailment and
assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an
incidents in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the cimbatants.
The rule now is “stand ground when in the right”
The ancient common law rule in homicide denominated “rtreat to the wall,” has now given
way to the new rule “stand ground when in the right.”
So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to
retreat when his asailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR?
In the absnce of direct evidence to determine who provikedthe conflict, it has been held
that it shall be presumed that, in hte nature of the order of the things, the person who was
deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed he had the right to demand
explanation of the perpetrator of that insult, and the one who also struck the first blow when
he was not satisfied with the expalnation offered.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS
1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity.
4
2. Defense of property - it can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is

coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.
3. Defense of home -
THREAT TO INFLICT REAL INJURY AS UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not presdeded by an outward and material

aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because it is required that the act be offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.
GRESSION THAT IS EXPECTED
An aggression that isd expected is still real, provided it is imminent.
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
The second requisite of defense presupposes the exixtence of unlawful aggression,

whcih is either imminent or actual. Hence, in stating the second requisite, two phrases are
used, namely: (1) “to prevent” and (2) “to repel.” When we are attacked, the danger to our
life or limb is either imminent or actual. In making a defense, we prevent the aggression that
places us in actual danger. A threat to inflict real injury places us in imminent danger. An
actual physical assault places us in actual danger.
The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circmstances. In emergencies

where the person or life of another is imperilled, human nature does not act upon
processess of formal reason in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation.
Necessity of the course of action taken
The necessity of the course of action taken depends on the existence of unlawful
aggression. If there was no unlawful aggression or, if there was, it has ceased exist, there
would be no necessity for any course of action to take as there is nothing to prevent or to
repel.
2) Necessity of the means used
The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally

necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
THE TEST OF REASONABLE OF THEIR MEANS USED
Whether or not the means empolyed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and
quality of the weapon used by the aggressor his physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion
of the assault.
The first two requisites thus far explained are common to self dfense, defense of
relative, and defense of a stranger. These three kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the
third requisite.
5
THIRD REQIUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE
“Lack of sufficient provoacation on the part of the3 person of defending himself.”
REASON FOR THE THIRD REQUISITE OF SELF DEFENSE
When the person defending himself from the attack by the another gave sufficient
provocation to the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the
aggression.
Hence, to tbe entitled to the benefit of the justfying circumstance of self-defense, the
one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggrression by his unjust conduct
or by inciting or porvoking the assailant.
Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered present
When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending
himself; or
When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself; or
When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
HOW TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION?
The must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.
Par.2 - DEFENSE RELATIVES
Anyone who acts in the defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree,
provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
Consanguinity
refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters within the second civil degree; uncle
and niece or aunt and nephew are within the thirds civil degree; and first cousins are within
the fourth civil degree.
Basis of justification
The justification of defense relatives by reason of which the defender is not criminally
liable, is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of
6
blood which impels men o rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close
to them by ties of blood.
Requisites of defense of relatives:
Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
In case the provocation was given by the person attacked the one making a defense
had no part therein.
The first two requisite are already explained in the discussion odf self –defense.
THIRD REQUISITE OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
The clause, “ in case the provoacation was given by the person attacked,” used in
stating the third requisite of defense of relatives, does not mean that the relative defended
should give provocation to the aggression. The clause merely states an event which may or
may not take place.
Reason for the rule: That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its
effects do not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was prompted
by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a realtive.
Par.3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the
first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and
that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Requisites:
Unlawful aggression
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Basis of defense of stranger
What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. Persons acting in defense
of others are in the same condition and upon the same plane as those who act in defense of
themselves. The ordinary man woulkd not stand idly by and seee his companion killed
without attempting to save his life.
Third requisite of defense of stranger
7
This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or

generous motive, when it puts down “revenge, resentment, or other evil motive” as
illegitimate
Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage
to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
“DAMAGE TO ANOTHER”
This term coveres injury no persons and damage to property.
Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
Requisites:
1. That he accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office.
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed by the necessary consequence of
such right or office.
DISTINGUISED FROM SELF-DEFENSE AND FROM CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS

ACT
Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is different from self- defense,
because thaty are based on different principle
Lawful exercise of right or office (OF RIGHT)
Under the civil code (Art. 429), the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right
to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose , he may
8
use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Lawful exercise of right or office (OF OFFICE)
The executioner of the Bilibid Prison cannot be held liable for murder for the
execution performed by him because he was merely acting in the lawful exercise of his
office.
Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.

2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.
II. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Definition
Exempting circumstances (non- imputability) are those grounds for exemtion from
punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any the condtions which
make the act vluntary or negligent.
2. Basis
The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,

freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.
CIRCUMTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
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 be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
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.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear 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.
9
In exempting circumtances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises.
One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumtances commits a crime,
although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arise.
BURDEN OF PROOF
Any of the circumtances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter of defense and the same
must be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Par. 1-- An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval.
IMBECILITY DISTINGUISHED FROM INSANITY
The imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt
if it can shown that he acted during a lucid interval.
During lucid inteval, the insane acts with intelligence.
An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development

comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age.
To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there

be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will.
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 the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of
freedom of the will.
PROCEDURE WHEN THE IMBECILE OR THE INSANE COMMITTED A FELONY
The court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established
for persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the
permission of the court.
WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW INSANITY?
The defense must prove that the caused was insane at the time of the commission of
the crime, because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
 Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the prosecution may
proceed upon the presumption that the accused was sane and responsible
when the act was committed.
10
 The presumption is always in favor of sanity and the burden of proof of

insanity is on the defense.
Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony distinguished from insanity at the
time of the trial.
When a person wan insane at the time of the commission of the felony, he is exempt
from criminal liability.
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.
EVIDENCE OF INSANITY
It must refer to the time proceeding the act under prosecution or to the very moment
of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime,
the accused cannot be acquitted.
WHEN DEFENSE OF INSANITY IS NOT CREDIBLE
1. The defense of insanity is incredible.

2. He is not insane
3. The presumption of sanity has not been overcome.
4. The accused was not legally insane when he killed the hapless and helpless victim.
5. When he committed the dastardly felonies.
DEMENTIA PRAECOX is covered by the term insanity
When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox,

homicidal attack is common, because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually,
or that his proprty is baeing taken.
KLEPTOMANIA
If the accused appaers to have been suffering from kleptomania when he committed
the crime of theft.
The case of a person suffreiing from kleptomania must be investigated by competent

alienist or psychiatrist to determine whether the impulse to steal is irresistible or not.
EPILEPSY may be covered by the term insanity
Is a chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occuring at intervals, attended by

convulsive motions of the muscles and loss of consciousness.
FEEBLEMINDEDNESS is not imbecility
In the case of people vs. Formigones, supra,it was held that feeblemindedness is not
exempting, because the offender could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an
insane cannot distinguish right from wrong.
11
OTHER CASES OF LACK OF INTELLIGENCE
1. Committing a crime while in a dream

a. Somnambulism or sleepwalking.
b. Hypnotism
2. Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria.
BASIS OF PARAGRAPH 1.
The exempting circumtances if insanity or imbecility is based on the complete

absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
Par. 2 – A person under nine years of age.
Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to fifteen years of age
Konwn as “ Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” raise the age of absolute
irresponsibility drom nine (9) to fifteen (15) yearsof age.
The exempting circumtances of minority is based also on the complete absence of

intelligence.
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 proceed against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 of his Code
PARAGRAPH 3, ARTICLE 12 RPC IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO.

9344
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility – A children 15 years age or under at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
Chrildren above 15 but below 18 years of age who acted without discernment exempt forom
criminal liability
Minor under 18 but above 15 must acted with discernment to incur criminal liability.
It is presumed however that he/she acted without discernment because of the phrase
“unless he/she has acted with discernment” which indicate an exemption.
PERIODS OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILTY
1) The age of absolute irresponsibility – 9 years and below (infancy)
12
2) The age of conditional responsibility – between 9 and 15 years.

3) The age of full responsibility – 18 or over (adolescence) to 70 ( maturity).
4) The age of mitigated responsibility- over 9 and under 15, offender acting with
discernment; 15 or over but less than 18; over 70 years of age.
Meaning of DISCERNMENT
That constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong,and such capacity may be
known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumtances
afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
compartment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the
act, but also after and even during the trial.
DISCERMENT AND INTENT DISTINGUISHED
“INTENT” refers to the desired act of the person while “DISCERNMENT” relates to the
moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act.
Discernment may be shown by:
1. Manner of committing a crime 2. Conduct of offender
FACTS FROM WHICH AGE IS PRESUMED MUST BE STATED FORTHE RECORD
The officer or court called upon to make a finding as to the aged of the accused
should state in the record, not merely a general statement of the personal appearance of
the accused, but the particular fact or facts concerning personal appearancewhich lead
such officer or court to believe that his age was stated by said officer or court.
Basis of paragraph 3.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 3 of Art.12 is based also on the complete

absence of interlligence.
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.
ELEMENTS:
1) A person is performing a lawful act;

2) With due care;
3) He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4) Without fault or intention of causing it.
13
FORTUITOUS EVENT – an event happening by chance or accident. It is an accurence or

failure to occur which is, or is assumed by the parties to be adversely affected by the
happening of such event.
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
forseeable consequences.
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 irrisistable force.
This exempting circumstance presuppoes 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 exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 12 is based on the complete

absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
NATURE OF FORCE REQUIRED
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 intimadition must be present,
imminent and impending and such a nature as t induce a well-grounded apprehension of
death of death or serious bodily harmif the act is not done.
Par. 6. – Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
This exempting circumstance 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:
14
1) That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater that 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
have succumbed to it.
INTIMIDATION – to make fearful or to put into fear.
GENERAL RULE – actual fear is not necessary, it can be seen from conduct, cords or
circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear.
THREAT – a ddemand by a party to another to take an action or refrain from taking or

continuing an action.
NATURE OF DURESS AS A 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.
DURESS – Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that a person to perform an
act that he or she odinarily would not perform.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN IRRESISTABLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
In irresistable force (par.5), the offender uses violence or physical force to compel
another person to commit a crime; n uncontrollable fear (par.6), the offender employs
intimidation r threat in compelling another to commit a crime.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Art.12 is aslo based on the complete

absence of freedom.
“actus me invito factus non est meus actus.” (“An Act done by me against my will is
not my act.”)
Par 7. – any personn 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 circumtance in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 exempt the acused from criminal liability,
because he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
15
1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the law,
that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing
unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. The act of such person is in
itself both just and lawful.
2) In exempting circumstance, there is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified,
but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability, except in pars.4 and 7
(causing an injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act required by law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art.12.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of
public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
In addition to the justifying circumstances (Art.11) and the exempting circumstances

(Art. 12), there are other absolutory causes in the following articles, to wit:
Art. 6 – The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission
of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution.
Art. 20 – Accessories who ae exempt from criminal liability.- The penalties prescribed
for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants. Legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives
by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling with the
provisions of paragraph 1 ogf the next prceeding article.
Art. 124, last paragraph. – The commission of the crime, or violent insanity or any
other ailment requiring the compulsary confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be
considered legal grounds for the detention of any person.
Art. 247, pars.1 and 2 – Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. – Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in
the act or imediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.
Art. 280, par.3. – The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling) shall not be
applicable to any person who sdhall enter another’s dwelling for the purpose of preventing
some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be
applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other
public houses, while the same are open.
Art. 332. – Persons exempt from criminal liability. – No criminal, but only civil, liability
shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or lamicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the followingpersons:
1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
16
2) The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Art. 344. Par. 4. – In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the
marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit
the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after yhe fact of the above-
mentioned crimes.
1. INSTIGATION is an absolutory cause
Basis of exemptiom from criminal liability
A sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice (instigation)
by directing the acquittak of the accused.
2. ENTRAPMENT is not an absolutory cause.
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION DISTINGUISED
There is a wide dirrence between entrapment and instigation, for while in the latter
case the instigator parctically induces the would – be accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment, ways and means are resortes to
for the puropose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker in the excution of his criminal plan.
Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. But when there is
instigation, the accused must be acquired.
Instigation must be made by public offices or private detectives. A criminal act may
not be punishable if the accused was induced to commit it by active cooperation and
instigation on the part of public detectives.
COMPLETE DEFENSES IN CRIMINAL CASES
1) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution
and the elements proved do not constitute any crime.
2) The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances.
3) The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances.
4) 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)
17
i. Instigation
5). Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
6) Prescription of crimes. (Art.89)
7) Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime
against chastity. (Art.344)
III. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1) Definition
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the
crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.
2) Basis
Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of

action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Ordinary mitigating - those enumerated in subsections 1 to 10 of Article 13.
2. Privileged mitigating –
a. Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age.
b. Art. 69.Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly

excusable.
c. Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods.
Priviledged mitigating circumstances applicable only to particular crimes
1. Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days without the
offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminal action. The penalty is one
degree lower.
2. Abandonement without justification of the spouse who committed adultery. The

penalty is one degree lower.
DISTINCTIONS
1. Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance;

while privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.
2. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravating circumstnces, produces only the

effect of applying the penalty by law for the crimes in its minimum period, in case of divisible
18
penalty; whereas, privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime.
Mitigating circumtances only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the crime
 Where the accused is charged with murder, as when treachery as a qualifying

circumstance is alleged in the information, the fact that there is a generic or
privileged mitigating circumstance does not change the felony homicide.
 If there is an ordinary or generic mitigating circumstance, not offset by any
aggravating circumstances, the accused should be found guilty of the same crime of
murder, but the penalty to be imposed is reduced to the minimum of the penalty for
murder.
 If there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty for murder will be reduced
by one or two degrees lower.
 The judgment of the trial court that the mitigating circumstance of non-habitual
drunkenness changes the felony to homicide is erroneous, because treachery is
alleged in the information and the crime committed by the appellant is that of murder.
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 eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the
case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Article 80.
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 [arty immediately
preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication 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 communications 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 consciousness of hi acts.
10. Any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above-
mentioned.
19
Par. 1 – Those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all the requisites
necessary to justify to act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
The circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to

mitigation because not all the requisites necessary to justify the act to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant are the following:
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of stranger
4. State of necessity
5. Performance of duty
6. Obedience to order of superior
7. Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age
8. Causing injury by mere accident
9. Uncontrollable fear
When all the requisites necessary to justify the act are not attendant
1. Incomplete sel-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger.

2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury.
3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty.
4. Incomplete justifying circumstances of obedience to an order.
When all the requisites necessary to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 9 and under 15 years of age.

2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.
Par. 2. – That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years.
In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80
Paragraph 2, Article 13 RPC impliedly repealed by Republic Act No. 9344
That offender under 18 years of age is entitled to a mitigating circumstance of

minority is deemed repealed by the provision of Republic Act 9344 declaring a child above
fifteen (15) years but below 18 years or age shall be exempt from criminalliability unless
he/she has acted with discernment.
SYSTEM OF DIVERSION
20
a. Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not more than 6 years
imprisonment, the law enforcement office or Punong Barangay with the assistance of
the local social welfare and development officer or other members of the Local
Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC).
b. In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of
imprisonment.
c. Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds 6 years
imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court.
Meaning of Diversion and Diversion Program under Republic Act No. 9344
DIVERSION-refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the

responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, psychologocal or educational background without resorting to formal
court proceedings.
DIVERSION PROGRAM – refers to the program that the child in conflict with the law is
required to undergo after he/she is found responsible for an offense without resorting to
formal court proceedings.
Where diversion may be conducted?
Diversion may be conducted at the katarungang Pambaranggay, the police

investigation or the inquest or preliminary investigation stage and at all levels ang phases of
the proceedings including, judicial level.
Duty of the Punong Barangay or the law Enforcement Officer when there is no
diversion
I. Punong Barangay handling the case shall, within (3) three days from determination
of the absence of jurisdiction over the case or termination of the diversion proceeding
as the case may be, forward the records of the case to the law enforcement officer,
prosecutor or the appropriate court, as the case may be.
II. In case a Law Enforcement Officer is the one handling the case, within same
period, the Law Enforcement Officer shall forward the records of the case to the
prosecutor or judge concerned for the conduct of inquest and/or preliminary
investigation.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
 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 old or older.
 Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with law prior to the filing of the
information in any appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding for the
determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide tha case within
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleading of all interested
parties.
 If a case has been filed against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the
appropriate court, the person shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in
the same court where the case is pending.
 In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other
government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the
child in conflict with the law.
21
That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic mitigating circumstance.
but there are two cases where the fact that the offender is over 70 years of age has the
effect of a privileged mitigating circumstance, namely: (1) when he committed an offense
punishable by death, that penalty shall not be imposed; and (2) when death sentence is
already imposed, it shall be suspended and commuted.
Basis of paragraph 2
The mitigating circumstances in paragraph 2 of Art. 13 are based on the

diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness.
Par. 3 - That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed
RULE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH
This circumstance can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that
there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the
criminal act and its consequences.
Mitigating when the victim dies
As part of their fun-making, the accused merely intended to set the deceased’s
clothes on fire. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause at the very least some kind of
physical injuries on this person.
Is Art. 13. Par.3, appilicable to felonies where the intention of the offender is
immaterial?
In unintentional abortion, where the abortion that resulted is not intended by the
offender, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed is not applicable.
Unintentional abortion is committed by any person who, by violence, shall cause the
killing of the foetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the foetus from the material
womb, causing its death, but unintentionally.
In this circumstance, intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is

diminished.
Par. 4. – That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
What is PROVOCATION?
22
By provocation is understood any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended

party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one.
Requisites:
1. That the provocation must be sufficient

2. That it must originate from the offended party
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act.
The provocation must be sufficient
Provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately preceeding

the act.
Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite of incomplete self-defense and

as a mitigating circumstance
Sufficient provocation as a requisite of incomplete self-defense is different form

sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance. As an element of self-defense, it pertains
to its absence on the part of the person defending himself, while as a mitigating
circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party.
The mitigating circumstance in paragraph 4 of Art. 13 is based on the diminution of

intelligence and intent.
Par. 5 – That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
Requisites:
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brohers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is
allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense.
DISTINGUISH PROVOCATION FROM VINDICATION
1. In the case of provocation, it is made directly only to the person committing the felony; in
vindication, the grave offense may be committed also against the offender’s relatives
mentioned by the law.
2. In vindication, the offended party must have done a grave ofense to the offender or his
relatives mentioned by the law; in provocation, the cause that brought about the
provocation need not be a grave offense.
23
3. In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded tha

act, i,e., that there be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of
the crime; while in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which
admits of an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the
commission of the crime by the accused.
Basis of Paragraph 5
The mitigating circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 13 is based on the diminution of

the conditons of voluntariness.
Vindication of a grave offense incompatible with passion of obfuscation
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be counted

separately and independently.
. Par. 6 - That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

produced passion or obfuscation.
RULE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH
Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when the same
arose from lawful sentiments. For this, reason, even if there is actually passion or
obfuscation on the part of the offender, there is no mitigating circumstance, when:
1. The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or

2. The act is committed in a sipirit of revenge.
Requisites of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the crime by a considerable lenght of time, during which the perpetrator might recover
his normal equanimity.
No passion or obfuscation after 24 hours, or several hours or half an hour
There could have been no mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation when

more than 24 hours elapsed between the alledged insult and the commission of the felony,
or if a several hours passed between the cause of passion or obfuscation and the
commission of the crime, or where at least half an hour intervened between the previous
fight and subsequent killing of the deceased by the accused.
Basis of Paragraph 6
Passion of obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance becuase the offender who acts

with passion or obfuscation suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent.
24
Vindication or obfuscation cannot be considered when the person attacked is not the
one who gave cause therefor.
Passion or obfuscation distinguised from irresistible force
1. While passion of obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance, irresistible force in an

exempting circumstance.
2. Passion or obfuscation cannot give rise to an irresitible force because irresistible

force requires physical force.
3. Passion of obfuscation, is in the offender himself, while irresistible force must

come from a third person.
4. Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments; whereas, the irresistible
force is unlawful.
Passion or obfuscation distinguised from provocation
1. Provocation comes from the injured party, passion or obfuscation is produced by

an impulse which may be caused by provocation.
2. Provocation must immediately precede the commission of the crime; in passion or

obfuscation, the offense which engenders perturbation of mind need not be immediate.It is
only required that the influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed.
3. In both, the effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the part of the offender.
Par. 7- That the offender 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 evidnce for the prosecution
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.

b. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s
ageent.
c. That the surrender was voluntary.
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARINESS
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a

manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishees to save them
the trouble and expenses necessarily incurrede in hos search and capture.
The surender must be made to a person in authority or his agent
25
A “person in authority” is one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is a public officer
who has the power to govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or government corporation, board or commission.
A “agent of a person in authprity: is a person, who, by direct provision of the law, or

by election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and pro[erty and any person who comes
to the aid of persons in authority.
TIME AND PLACE OF SURRENDER
The Revised Penal Code does not make any distinction among the various moments
when the surrender may occur. Five days after the commission of the crim of homicide and
two days after the issuance of the order of his arrest, the accused presented himself in the
municipal uilding to post the bond for his temporary release.
When is surrender voluntary?
A surrender to be voluntarily must be spontaneous, showing rhe intent of the

accused to submit himself unconditonally to the authorities, either (1) because he
acknowledges his guilt, or (2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search capture.
REQUISITES OF PLEA OF GUILTY
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court , that is, before the
competent court that is to try the case;
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
Philiosophy behind the rule.
If an accused, charge with an offense cognizable by the municipal court, pleads not
gulity therein, and on appeal to the court of first instance, changes his plea to that of guilty
upon rearraigment, he should not be entitled to the mitigating circumstances of confession of
guilt.
The confession of guilt must be made prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.
Mandatory presentation of evidence in plea of guilty to capital offense.
The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 116, Sec. 3) provides that where the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
volunta-riness of full comprehension of the consquences of his plea and shall require the
prosecution o prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present
evidence in his behalf.
Reasons why plea of guilty is mitigating.
26
It is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in
the accused, favorablr to his reform.
The basis of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty is
the lesser perversity of the offender.
Par. 8 – That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his beings.
PHYSICAL DEFECT – referred to in this paragrapgh is such as being armless, cripple, or a

stutterer, whereby his means to act, defend himself or communicate with his felklow beings
are limited.
Paragrapgh 8 of Art. 13 considers the fact that one suffering from physical defect,
which restricts one’s means of action, defense, or communication with one’s fellow beings,
does not have complete freedom of action and, therefore, there is a diminution of that
element of voluntariness.
Par. 9. – Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power
of the offender without however depriving him of conciousness of his acts.
Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. hat such illness should not deprive the eoffender of conciousness of his acts.
The circumstance in paragrpah 9 of Art. 13 is mitigating because there is a

diminution of intelligebce and intent.
Par. 10. – And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to
those abovementioned
Circumstamces which are neither exempting nor mitigating.
1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus, for under Art. 48, there is a complex crime
committed. The penalty is even higher.
27
2. Mistake in the identity in the identity of the victim, for under Art. 4, par.1, the
accused is criminally liable even if the wrong done is different from that which is
intended.
3. Entrapment of the accused.
4. Th accused is over 18 years of age. If the offender is over 18 years old, his age is
neither exempting nor mitigating.
5. Performance of righteous action.
IV. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the

crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the
penalty provided by law for the offense.
BASIS
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the
commission of the felony as shown by: (1) the motivating opwer itself, (2) the place of
commission, (3) the means and ways employed, (4) the time, or (5) the personal
circumstances of the offender, or of the offended party.
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Generic – Those that can generally apply to all crimes
2. Specific – Those that apply only to particular crimes.
3. Qualifying – Those that change the nature of the crime.
4. Inherent – Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished from generic aggravating

circumstance.
1. The effect of a generic aggaravating circumstance, not offset by any mitigating

circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused
to the maximum period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that
of a qualifying circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive
name but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other
penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said crime.
2. A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating

circumstnce; a generic aggaravating circumstance may be compensated by a
mitigating circumstance.
3. A qualifying aggarvating circumstance to be such must be alleged in the

information. If it is not alleged, it is a generic aggravating circumstance only.
28
Aggravating circumstance not alleged
An agaravating circumtance, even if not alleged in the information, may be proved

over the objection of the defense.
Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of increasing the penalty
1. Aggravating circumstances (a) which in themselves constitute a crime specially

punishable by law, or (b) which are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherit in
the crime to such a dregree that it must of necessity accompany the commission
therof.
Aggravating circumstances which are personal to the offenders
. Aggravating circumstances which arise: (a) from the moral attributes of the offender.
or (b) from his priviate relations with the offended party, or (c) from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
Aggravating circumstances which depend for their appliocation upon the knowledge
of the offenders.
The circumstances whhich consist (1) in the material execution of the act, or (2) in
the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons
only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act otr their cooperation
therein.
Aggravating circumstances not presumed
An aggravating circumstances should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order

to increase the penalty.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of his rank , age, or sex, ot that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or
where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated
to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
29
7. That the crime be committed on the occassion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,

epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
8. Thta the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in
the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of
a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. Taht the act be committed with evident premeditation.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strengh, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
19. That as means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or by
means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
Par. 1 – That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
Basis of this aggravating circumstance
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
circumstance of the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of the
crime.
Par. 2 – That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the

public authortites.
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of
respect for the public authorities.
Requisites of this circumstance:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.

2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person
against whom the crime is committed.
30
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.

4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY – sometimes called a person in authority, is a public officer who is

directly vested with jurisdiction that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and
execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc. are persons in authority. The
barangay captain and barangay chairman are also persons in authority.
Par. 3 – That the act committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due to the
offended party on account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in
the dwelling of the ofended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
Basis of these aggravating circumstances
These circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown
by the personal circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of the
crime.
With insult or in disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account –
1. of the rank of the offended party;

2. of the age of the offended party;
3. of the sex of the offended party.
Not applicable in certain cases
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation;

2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender;
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime.
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the offnse.
Dwelling is considered an aggaravating circumstances primarily because of the

sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling;

2. Sufficient;
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
What dwelling includes?
Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and enclosure under the
house.
31
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:
1. When both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house.
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of ofrce upon things, dwelling is not
aggaravating because it is inherent.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.
5. When the dwelling where the crime was committted did not belong to the offended party.
6. When the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor
being used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
Par. 4 – That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence, or (2) obvious
ungratefulness
Basis of these aggravating circumstances
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means
and ways employed.
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender who
latter abuses such trust by committing the crime.
Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
Par. 5 – That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of thier duties, or in a
place dedicated to religious worship.
Basis of the aggravating circumstances
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of
the commission of the crime, which must be respected.
Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties (par.5),
distinguished from contempt or insult to public authorities. (par.2)
1. In both, the public authorities are in the performance of their duties.
32
2. Under par.5, the public authorities who are in the performance of their duties must be in
their office; while in par. 2, the public authorities are performing their duties outside of their
office.
3. Under par. 2, the public authority should not be the offended party; while under par.5, he
may be the offended party.
Par. 6 – That the crime be committed (1) in the nightime, or (2) in an uninhabitad place, or
(3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the ofense.
Basis of the aggravating circumstances
They are based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and means
and ways employed.
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is aggravating when –
1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime;or

2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity
3. When the offender took advantage therof for the purpose of impunity.
 Nighttime – period of darkness beginning at end of dusk and ending at dawn.

 Uninhabited place – is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great
distance from each other.
 By a hand – whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
hand.
Par. 7 – That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the
commission of the crime.
Reason for the aggravation
The reason for the existence of this circumstance is found in the debased form of
criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the
afflicted, adds to thier suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
Par. 8 – That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who
insure or afford impunity.
Basis of this aggravating circumtance
33
It is based on the means and ways of committing the crime.
Requisites of this aggravating circumstance
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime
was committed.
Rule for the application of this circumstance
The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime was committed
does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused did not
avail himself of their aid or rely upon them to commit the crime.
Par. 9 – That the accused is a recidivist
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to
crimes.
Who is a recidivist?
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offnses are embraced in the same title of the
Code;
“At the time of his trial for one crime”
What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the commission of the crime.It is
not required that at the time of the commission of the crime, he accused should have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime.
Meaning of “at the time of his trial for one crime”
The phrase ‘at the time of his trial” should not be restrictively construed as to mean
the date of arraignment. It is employed in its general sense, including the rendering of the
judgment.
Par. 10 – That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to whcih it attaches a lighter
penalty.
34
The basis is the same as that of recidivism, i.,e., the greater perversity of the offender
as shown by his inclination to crimes.
Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense

2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter
penalty than that for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
Recidivism and reiteracion, distinguised.
1. In reiteraction, it is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence
for the first offene; whereas, in recidivism, it is enough that a final judgment has been
rendred in the first offense.
2. In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the
same titleof the Code; whereas, recidivism, requires that the offenses be included in
the same title of the Code.
3. Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance; whereas, recidivism is
always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused.
The four forms of repetition are:
 Recidivism
 Reiteracion or habituality
 Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency
 Quasi-recidivism
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of ten years from the
date of his release ore last convictionof the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robbery, theft, estafa of falsification, is found guilty in any of said crims a third time
or oftener.
QUASI-RECIDIVISM
Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punishd by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Par. 11 – That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise.
Basis
35
This is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating
power itself.
Par. 12 – That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive , or by the
use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
The killing of the victim by means of such circumstances as inundation, fire, poison ,
or explosion qualifies it ot murder.
Par. 13 – That the act be committed with evident premeditation..
The basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident
premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act before executing it.
Essence of premeditation
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
preceeded by cool thought and reflection upon thee resolution to carry out the criminal intent
during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Requisites of evident premeditations
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time bewtween the determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome he
resolution of his will.
Par. 14 – That (1) craft, (2) fraud, or (3) disguise be employed.

.
Basis of this aggravating circumstance.
The basis has reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime.
Application of this paragraph
This circumstance is characterized nby the intellectual or mental rather than the
physical means to which the criminal resorts to carry out hisw design.
CRAFT – involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. It is
not attendant where the accused was parctically in a stupor when the crime was committed.
36
FRAUD - insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner
which would enable the offender to carry out his design.
How is craft distinguised from fraud?
When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud, is

present, otherwise, the act of the accused done in order not to arouse the suspecion of the
victim constitutes craft.
DISGUISE – resorting to any device to conceal identity.
Par. 15 – That (1) advantage be taken of superior strenght, or (2) means be employed
to weaken the defense.
To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive forve out
of proportion to the means of the defense available to the person attacked.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strenght depends on the age,

size, and strenght of the parties.
Abuse of superiority absorbs cuadrilla. If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and

band then it is reasonable to hold that band should not be treated separately and distinct
from abuse odf superor strenght.
Par. 16 – That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
The basis has reference to the means and ways employed in the cmmission of the
crime.
TREACHERY – there is treachery when the ofender commits any of the crimes against the
persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended paty might make.
Rules regarding treachery
 Applicable only to crimes against the person

 Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of the crime
 The mode of attack must be consciously adopted
Requisites of treachery:
37
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself;
2. That the offender conciously adopted the particular means, method or forms of attack
employed by him.
Treachery in killing a child
Killing a child is characterized by treachery because the weakness of the victim due
to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
Treachery is present in the beginning of the assault depending upon the the
circumstances of the case.
Summary of the rules.
 When the aggreassion is continuous, treachery must be present in the

beginning of the assault
 When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is
sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was gone.
Distinguished of treachery, abuse of superior strenght and menas employed to

weaken the defense
In treachery, means, methods or forms of attack are employed by the offender tomake
it impossible or hard for the offended party to put up any sort of resistance. In abuse of
superior strenght, the offender does not employ means, methods or forms of attack;he only
takes advantage of his superior strenght.In means employed to weaken the defense, the
offender, like in treachery, emplys means but the means employed only marerially weakens
the resisting power of the offnded party.
Par. 17 – That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
Basis of this aggravating circumstances
The basis has reference to the means emplyed.
IGNOMINY – Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace
abd obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
Par. 18 – That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is affected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
38
Unlawful entry – there is an unlawful enrty when an entrance is affected by a way not
intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry must be means to effect entrance and not for escape.
Par. 19 – That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
be borken.
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime.
Par. 20 – That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age,
or (2) by means of motor vehicdleds, airships, or other similar means.
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime.
Two different aggravating circumstances in paragraph 20.
1. Tends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by professional

criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility
2. Intended to counteract the great facilities found by m,odern criminals in said means to
commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.
Par. 21 – That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
The basis has reference to means and ways employed to committing the crime.
CRUELTY - there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnvecessary physical pain in the consummation of the
criminal act.
Requisites of cruelty:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other worng be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
offender.
IGNOMINY DISTINGUISED FROM CRUELTY
Ignominy involves moral suffering, while cruelty refers to physical suffering.
39
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Alternative circumstances are those that which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effectsof the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree
of instruction and education of the offender.
BASIS
The basis is the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission.
The alternative circumstances are:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
RELATIONSHIP
The alternative circumstances of relationship shall be taken into consideration when

the offended party is the –
 Spouse
 Ascendant
 Descendant
 Legitimate,natural, or adopted brother or sister or
 Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
When mitigating and when aggravating
As a rule, relationship is miigating in crimes against property by analogy to the

provisions of Art. 332. Under Art. 332 of the Code, no criminal , but only civil, liability shall
result from commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or
caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the
same line, brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sister-in-law, if living together.
INTOXICATION
a. Mitigating – (1) if intoxication is not habitual, or (2) if intoxication is not subsequent

to the plan to commit a felony
b. Aggravating – (1) if intoxication is habitual, or (2) if it is intentional (subsequent to

the plan to commit a felony).
Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication.
 As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that when a person is
underthe influence of liquor, his exercise of will power is impaired.
 As an aggravating circumstance, because I is intentional, the reason is that the
offender resorted to it in order to bolster his courage to commit a crime.
40
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is genarally MITIGATING. High

degree of insturction and education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his
learning in committing crime.
NOTE: Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient intelligence are necessary to invoke
the benefit of the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the dtermination of which is
left to the trial court.
The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction must be proved postively and

directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or inference.
Lack of education must be proved positively and cannot be based on mere

dedcustion or inference. Lack of instrucion needs to be proven as all circumstances
modifying criminal liability should be proved directly and positively.
NOTE: The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for the firts time in appellate
court.
GENERAL RULE: Lack of instruction or low degree of it is appreciated as mitigating

circumstance in almost all crimes.
EXCEPTIONS
1. Not mitigating in crimes against property, such as estafa, theft, robbery, arson except in
US vs Maqui, 27 Phil 97,101, “ lack of insturction was mitigating in theft of large cattle
committed by a member of an uncivilized tribe of Igorots or in Igorot land.
2.Not mitigating in crimes against chastity, such as rape and adultery. No one is si ignorant
as not to know that the crime of rape is wrong and in violation of the law.
In treason, it is not mitigating, because love of country should be a natural feeling of every
citizen, however, unlettered or unculture he may be.
NOTE: As a general rule, lack of education and instruction is NOT mitigating in murder
subject to exceptions.
High degree of instruction, as aggravating. Degree of instruction is aggravating when the

offender availed himself or took advantage of it in committing the crime.
41
Self-Learning Activity Module 5

BSCRIM-Crim Law 2B
2:3O PM – 4:00 PM
NAME: ________________________________
ACTIVITY
INSTRUCTION: Read the questions carefully and answer them briefly. A mere Yes or No
answers will not be given any points. Use the attachedanswer sheet for your answer.
Alyssa was working as a dentist aide for Dr. Narsi in an evening shift,
one of their patients was Engr. Gavie. Engr. Gavie was mesmerized by the
beauty of Alyssa and he offered for a dinner but the young lady refused. Engr.
Gavie did not stop in courting Alyssa until he planned to give him a special
dinner in their ancestral house which was located 10 km away from the
town,Alyssa adhered to the invitation because she loved visiting old houses,
further, when Alyssa ate the steak, she suddenly felt headache and started to
vomit and after few minutes, Engr. Gavie started his evil desire on her and
before Alyssa got unconscious, she shouted “help!” but no one rescued her until
she woke up and realized that she was already in the hospital with bruises.
Alyssa immediately filed the appropriate case with an aggravating circumstance
of uninhabited place but it was opposed by Engr. Gavie stating that it was their
ancestral house. If you were the Judge, would you consider the place an
uninhabited place? Why?
42

BSCRIM-Crim Law 2C
2:3O PM – 4:00 PM
NAME: ________________________________
ACTIVITY
Roma filed an estafa case against his delivery boy, aka “Lalung” for not
declaring the exact amount which he collected from their customers, fish
vendors amounting to eighty thousand pesos (P 80,000.00). When “Lalung”
received a Subpoena requiring him to submit his Counter-Affidavit, he did not
comply until he received a Notice of Hearing for his arraignment,”Lalung” went
to Atty. Sacramento for assistance and the latter advised him to report to the
nearest police station. What mitigating circumstance being discussed in the
scenario and is it considered?Why?
43

BSCRIM-Crim Law 2D
1:00- 4:00 PM
NAME: ________________________________
ACTIVITY
Sibling Elsie and Tonnie shared a room ever since they were kids, they
loved borrowing their things. One day, while Elsie fixing her things, she noticed
a new pair of white shoes of Tonnie, he used the said shoes in their school affair
without the consent of Elsie, unfortunately, Tonnie lost the said shoes. Elsie
filed a case against Tonnie, will the case prorper?Why?
44
REFERENCE:
The Revised Penal Code by Luis B. Reyes,Book 1-Sixteenth Edition 2016
The Revised Penal Code
45

Module 5 in Crim Law.2nd Sem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 5 in Crim Law.2nd Sem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 5 in Crim Law.2nd Sem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Module in Criminal Law 1(Book 1)

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 State and explain the circumstances

Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

IMPUTABILITY – Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as

RESPONSIBILITY – Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime.

IMPUTABILITY DISTINGUISHED FROM RESPONSIBILITY

Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in

2) Basis of justifying circumstances

The following do not incur any liability;

First. Unlawful aggression

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

First. That the devil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Par. 1- SELF- DEFENSE

First. Unlawful aggression

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE

REASONS WHY PENAL LAW MAKESSELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL

REQUISITES OF SELF DEFENSE

Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an

PERILE TO ONE’S LIFE

PERILE OT ONE’S LIMB

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETALIATION AND SELF DEFENSE

REASON FOR THE RULE

The rule now is “stand ground when in the right”

HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR?

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS

1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity.

2. Defense of property - it can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is

THREAT TO INFLICT REAL INJURY AS UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not presdeded by an outward and material

GRESSION THAT IS EXPECTED

An aggression that isd expected is still real, provided it is imminent.

REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

The second requisite of defense presupposes the exixtence of unlawful aggression,

The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circmstances. In emergencies

Necessity of the course of action taken

2) Necessity of the means used

The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally

THE TEST OF REASONABLE OF THEIR MEANS USED

THIRD REQIUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE

“Lack of sufficient provoacation on the part of the3 person of defending himself.”

REASON FOR THE THIRD REQUISITE OF SELF DEFENSE

Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered present

HOW TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION?

Par.2 - DEFENSE RELATIVES

Requisites of defense of relatives:

THIRD REQUISITE OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

Par.3 - DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Basis of defense of stranger

Third requisite of defense of stranger

This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or

Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

This term coveres injury no persons and damage to property.

Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE

DISTINGUISED FROM SELF-DEFENSE AND FROM CONSEQUENCE OF FELONIOUS

Lawful exercise of right or office (OF RIGHT)

Lawful exercise of right or office (OF OFFICE)