and he was involved in a felony, he was invoking lack of degree of education. The Supreme Court held that although he did not receive schooling, yet it cannot be said that he lacks education because he came from a family where brothers are all professionals. So he understands what is right and wrong.
The fact that the offender did not have schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate his liability if the crime committed is one which he inherently
understands as wrong such as parricide. If a child or son or daughter would kill a parent, illiteracy will not mitigate because the low degree of instruction has no bearing on the crime. In the same manner, the offender may be a lawyer who committed rape. The fact that he has knowledge of the law will not aggravate his liability, because his knowledge has nothing to do with the commission of the crime. But if he committed falsification, that will aggravate his criminal liability, where he used his special knowledge as a lawyer.
Absolutory cause
The effect of this is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance, but it is not called as such in order not to confuse it with the circumstances under Article 12.
(1) Article 20 provides that 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 exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
(2) Then, Article 89 provides how criminal liability is extinguished:
Death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished if death occurs before final judgment;
Service of the sentence; Amnesty; Absolute
pardon; Prescription of the crime;
Prescription of the penalty; and Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.
(3) Under Article 247, a legally married person who kills or inflicts physical injuries upon his or her spouse whom he surprised having sexual intercourse with his or her paramour or mistress in not criminally liable.
(4) Under Article 219, discovering secrets
through seizure of correspondence of the ward by their guardian is not penalized. (5) Under Article 332, in the case of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief, there is no criminal liability but only civil liability, when the offender and the offended party are related as spouse, ascendant, descendant, brother and sister-in-law living together or where in case the widowed spouse and the property involved is that of the deceased spouse, before such property had passed on to the possession of third parties.
(6) Under Article 344, in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action.
Absolutory cause has the effect of an exempting circumstance and they are predicated on lack of voluntariness like instigation. Instigation is associated with criminal intent. Do not consider culpa in connection with instigation. If the crime is culpable, do not talk of instigation. In instigation, the crime is committed with dolo. It is confused with entrapment.
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. Entrapment does not exempt the offender or mitigate his criminal liability. But instigation absolves the offender from criminal liability because in instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and, therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.
Extenuating circumstances
The effect of this is to mitigate the criminal liability
E l m e r P . B r a b a n t e C R I M I N A L L A W R E V I E W f o r t h e 2 0 1 1 B a r
E x a m s
Page 54
Article 13.Illustrations:
(1) An unwed mother killed her child in order to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance insofar as the unwed mother or the maternal grandparents is concerned, but not insofar as the father of the child is concerned. Mother killing her new born child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is lowered by two degrees. Since there is a material lowering of the penalty or mitigating the penalty, this is an extenuating circumstance.
(2) The concealment of honor by mother in the crime of infanticide is an extenuating circumstance but not in the case of parricide when the age of the victim is three days old and above.
(3) In the crime of adultery on the part of a married woman abandoned by her husband,
at the time she was abandoned by her husband, is it necessary for her to seek the company of another man. Abandonment by the husband does not justify the act of the woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal liability. When the effect of the circumstance is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating circumstance.
(4) A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the temptation of stealing things which appeal to his desire. This is not exempting. One who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal objects of his desire is criminally liable. But he would be given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering from an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his act. So this is an extenuating circumstance. The effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.
Distinctions between justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances In justifying circumstances –
(5) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
(6) The act complained of is considered to have been done within the bounds of law; hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law;
(7) Since the act is considered lawful, there is no crime, and because there is no crime, there is no criminal;
(8) Since there is no crime or criminal, there is no criminal liability as well as civil liability.
In exempting circumstances –
(5) The circumstances affect the actor, not the act;
(6) The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor acted without
voluntariness. He is a mere tool or instrument of the crime;
(7) Since the act complained of is actually wrongful, there is a crime. But because the actor acted without voluntariness, there is absence of dolo or culpa. There is no criminal;
(8) Since there is a crime committed but there is no criminal, there is civil liability for the wrong done. But there is no criminal liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there is neither criminal nor civil liability.
When you apply for justifying or exempting
circumstances, it is confession and
avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he can no longer rely on weakness of prosecution’s evidence
DECREE CODIFYING THE LAWS ON ILLEGAL / UNLAWFUL POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE, DEALING IN, ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION, OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION OR EXPLOSIVES (P.D. 1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 8294) AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
(1) If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance (Sec. 1, par. 3).
(2) The use of unlicensed firearm to commit homicide or murder is now a special
aggravating circumstance; hence, only one crime is committed, i.e., homicide or murder and, therefore, only one information shall be
filed (People vs. Castillo, GR 131592-93,
E l m e r P . B r a b a n t e C R I M I N A L L A W R E V I E W f o r t h e 2 0 1 1 B a r
E x a m s
Page 55
THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002(RA 9165)
As a qualifying aggravating circumstance
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable
(Sec. 25).
Immunity from prosecution and punishment, coverage
Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment. – Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act of 1991, any person who has violated Sections 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act, who voluntarily gives information about any violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16, Article II of this Act as well as any violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a drug syndicate, or any information leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the members thereof; and who willingly testifies against such persons as described above, shall be exempted from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his/her information of testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That the following conditions concur:
(1) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons described above;
(2) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State; (3) Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points; (4) the informant or witness has not been
previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except when there is no other direct evidence available for the State other than the information and
testimony of said informant or witness; and
(5) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any condition or undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further consideration for the grant of
immunity from prosecution and
punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not appear to be most guilty for the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said
informant or witness (Sec. 33).
Termination of the Grant of Immunity. – The immunity granted to the informant or witness, as prescribed in Section 33 of this Act, shall not attach should it turn out subsequently that the information and/or testimony is false, malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the persons described in the preceding Section against whom such information or testimony is directed against. In such case, the informant or witness shall be subject to prosecution and the enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously accorded him under this Act or any other law, decree or order shall be deemed terminated.
In case an informant or witness under this Act fails or refuses to testify without just cause, and when lawfully obliged to do so, or should he/she violate any condition accompanying such immunity as provided above, his/her immunity shall be removed and he/she shall likewise be subject to contempt and/or criminal prosecution, as the case may be, and the enjoyment of all rights and benefits previously accorded him under this Act or in any other law, decree or order shall be deemed terminated.
In case the informant or witness referred to under this Act falls under the applicability of this Section hereof, such individual cannot avail of
the provisions under Article VIII of this Act (Sec.
34).