aggravating circumstances Can never be offset by any aggravating circumstance. Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if not offset, will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period, provided the penalty is a divisible one. Privileged mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one to two degrees, depending upon what the law provides.
Q: What are the privileged mitigating circumstances under the RPC?
A:
1. When the offender is a minor under 18 years of age (Article 68)
2. When the crime committed is not wholly excusable (Article 69)
3. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according the number and nature of such circumstances (Article 64, paragraph 5) 4. Voluntary release of the person illegally
detained within 3 days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of the criminal action (Article 268, paragraph 3)
5. Abandonment without justification by the offended spouse in case of adultery (Article 333, paragraph 3)
6. Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide (Art. 255, paragraph 2)
Note: if it is the maternal grandparent who
committed the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty is one degree lower. If it is the pregnant woman who committed the offense to conceal dishonor, the penalty is two degrees lower.
In case of concealing dishonor by a pregnant woman in abortion, the penalty is merely lowered by period and not by degree, hence, not a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Q: What are contemplated in the privileged mitigating circumstances under Art. 69?
A: Incomplete justifying (Art. 11) and incomplete exempting (Art. 12) circumstances, provided that the majority of their conditions are present
Note: For this article to apply, it is provided that-
1. Some of the conditions required to justify the deed or to exempt from criminal liability are lacking,
2. The majority of such conditions are nonetheless present, and
3. When the circumstance has an indispensable element, that element must be present in the case. (Regalado, 2007) INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR .EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE . Q: What is the concept of incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance?
A: Incomplete justifying/exempting circumstance means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present or not all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability are present.
35
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S
F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
THE ACADEMICS COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON: KAREN FELIZ SUPNAD
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS: MARIA IRENE SANTOS
Q: How may incomplete justifying circumstance or incomplete exempting circumstance affect criminal liability of the offender?
A: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present, the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability are present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. When there are only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability, the presence of one shall be regarded as the majority.
Q: What condition is necessary before incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger may be invoked?
A: The offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger.
Q: How may incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger affect the criminal liability of the offender?
A: If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the other requisites being absent, the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
However, if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite, but not all, is present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. In such a case, the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites present or absent. Q: Does it apply to the exempting circumstance of accident? A: No. Under Article 12, paragraph 4, there are four requisites for the exempting circumstance of accident. First, a person must be performing a lawful act. Second, such must be done with due care. Third, an injury was caused to another by mere accident. Fourth, there is no fault or intention of causing such injury.
If the act was performed with due care but there was fault in causing an injury, the case will fall under Article 365, felonies by negligence or
imprudence. The effect would be like a mitigating circumstance since said article states that the penalty will be lower than if the felony was committed intentionally. If the person is performing a lawful act but has the intention to cause an injury, it will be an intentional felony, the second and third requisite will no longer apply. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD .
Q: Who are covered under this mitigating circumstance? A: Offenders who are: 1. Over 15 but under 18 years old who acted with discernment 2. Over 70 years old
Note: It is the age of the accused at the time of the
commission of the crime which should be determined.
Q: What are the legal effects of the various age brackets of the offender with respect to his criminal liability? A: AGE BRACKET EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY 15 and under Exempting circumstance Over 15 under 18, Exempting circumstance, if he acted without discernment. Mitigating circumstance, if he acted with discernment 18 to 70 Full criminal responsibility Over 70 Mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution of death sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM) .
Q: What is the basis of this mitigating circumstance?
A: The basis is diminution of intent.
Q: Should there be a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony?
36
ACRIMINALDVISER: JUDGE LAW RICO TEAM SEBASTIAN D. LIWANAG; SUBJECT HEAD: ALJON D. DE GUZMANASST. SUBJECT HEADS: JEFFREY D. ARZAGA, JEREMAE R. NADONGA; MEMBERS: EILYN E. MEDINA, VINCENT TITO B. ABUCEJO, PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D.
ALCARAZ, CONSTANZA B. BRILLANTES, ARWIN V. CABANTING, GIRLIE VENUS E. DE LEON, MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA, ANNIEBEL D. GUYO, LAWRENCE P.
HOLANDAY, ANDRES JOSE, JR., BIENVENIDO L. MABULAC II, LARIA CARISA C. OLIVIA, IRISH ROSSANE M. PULLANTE, MARICHIE B. ALARAS
A: Yes. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, this circumstance does not avail. Q: Does it apply to felonies by negligence? A: No, it is not applicable because the offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence or imprudence.
Q: What are the factors in order to ascertain the intention? A: 1. The weapon used 2. The part of the body injured 3. The injury inflicted 4. The manner it is inflicted
Note: This provision addresses the intention of the
offender at the particular moment when the offender executes or commits the criminal act and not during the planning stage. Q: Is this mitigating circumstance applicable when the offender employed brute force? A: No.
Example: If the rapist choked the victim, the choking contradicts the claim that he had no intention to kill the girl.
Q: In crimes against persons, what if the victim does not die?
A: The absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. It is only mitigating when the victim dies.
Q: When can the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong not be appreciated?
A: The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of the victim. (People v. Sales, G.R. No.
177218, October 3, 2011)
Note: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
cannot be raised as a mitigating circumstance under the Anti Hazing Law SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION .
Q: What is the basis of this mitigating circumstance?
A: The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
Q: Should threat be offensive and positively strong?
A: No. Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and thus, no longer a mitigating circumstance.
Q: What is provocation?
A: Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
Q: What are the requisites of sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance? A: 1. Provocation must be sufficient. 2. It must originate from the offended party. 3. It must be immediate to the act.
Q: How is sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance distinguished from threat or provocation as an element of self- defense?
A: 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. (People v. CA, G.R No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001) Note: Sufficiency depends on: 1. The act constituting the provocation 2. The social standing of the person provoked 3. Time and place provocation took place Q: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. Can Petra avail of the mitigating circumstance?
A: No. There is no mitigating circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Thomas.
Q: Why does the law require that “provocation must be immediate to the act,” i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked?
37
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S
F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
THE ACADEMICS COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON: KAREN FELIZ SUPNAD
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS: MARIA IRENE SANTOS
A: If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his reason and to exercise self- control. Moreover, the law presupposes that during that interval, whatever anger or diminished self- control may have emerged from the offender had already vanished or diminished.
Note: As long as the offender at the time he
committed the felony was still under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting under a diminished self-control. This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there are two criteria that must be taken into consideration:
1. If from the element of time, there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then the criterion to be used is based on time element.
2. However, if there is that time element and at the same time, facts are given indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from outrage of the threat or provocation done to him, then, he will still get the benefit of this mitigating circumstance. VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
Q: What is the basis of this mitigating circumstance?
A: The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby, diminishing the exercise of his will power.
Note: This has reference to the honor of a person. It
concerns the good names and reputation of the individual (People v. Anpar, 37 Phil. 201)
Q: What are the requisites of vindication of a grave offense as a mitigating circumstance?
A:
1. Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
2. A felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
Note: The vindication need not be done by the
person upon whom the grave offense was committed or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party.
Q: What is the meaning of the word offense in this particular mitigating circumstance?
A: The word offense should not be construed as equivalent to crime. It is enough that what was done was wrong.
Q: What factors should be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not? A: 1. Age 2. Education 3. Social status
Q: Is lapse of time allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense?
A: Yes. The word “immediate” in paragraph 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish text which uses the term “proxima.” A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense. It is enough that:
1. The offender committed the crime; 2. The grave offense was done to him, his
spouse, his ascendant or descendant or to his brother or sister, whether natural, adopted or legitimate 3. The grave offense is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime. Q: Compare the circumstances of sufficient threat or provocation and vindication of a grave offense. A: SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE It is made directly only to the person committing the felony. The grave offense may be committed also against the offender’s relatives mentioned in the law. The cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense. The offended party must have done a grave offense against the offender or his relatives mentioned in the law. It is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act. There must be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime. The vindication of the grave offense may be proximate which admits of interval of time between the grave offense committed by the offended party and the commission of the crime of the accused.
38
ACRIMINALDVISER: JUDGE LAW RICO TEAM SEBASTIAN D. LIWANAG; SUBJECT HEAD: ALJON D. DE GUZMANASST. SUBJECT HEADS: JEFFREY D. ARZAGA, JEREMAE R. NADONGA; MEMBERS: EILYN E. MEDINA, VINCENT TITO B. ABUCEJO, PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D.
ALCARAZ, CONSTANZA B. BRILLANTES, ARWIN V. CABANTING, GIRLIE VENUS E. DE LEON, MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA, ANNIEBEL D. GUYO, LAWRENCE P.
HOLANDAY, ANDRES JOSE, JR., BIENVENIDO L. MABULAC II, LARIA CARISA C. OLIVIA, IRISH ROSSANE M. PULLANTE, MARICHIE B. ALARAS
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
Q: What is the basis of this mitigating circumstance?
A: The basis is loss of reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.
Q: What is passion or obfuscation?
A: Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling which produces excitement so powerful as to overcome reason and self-control. It must come from prior unjust or improper acts. The passion and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.
Q: What are the elements of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance?
A:
1. Accused acted upon an impulse
2. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him.
Note: The passion or obfuscation should arise from
lawful sentiments in order to be mitigating.
Q: What are the requisites of passion or obfuscation?
A:
1. That there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. 2. That the said act which produced the
obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his natural equanimity.
Q: What is the rule when the three mitigating circumstances of sufficient threat or provocation (par. 4), vindication of a grave wrong (par. 5) and passion or obfuscation (par. 6) are present?
A: GR: If the offender is given the benefit of paragraph 4, he cannot be given the benefit of paragraph 5 or 6, or vice-versa. Only one of the three mitigating circumstances should be given in favor of the offender.
XPN: If the mitigating circumstances under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 arise from different sets of facts, they may be appreciated together, although they may have arisen from one and the same case. Q: When is passion or obfuscation not a mitigating circumstance? A: If the act is committed in the spirit of: 1. Lawlessness 2. Revenge
Q: What are the distinctions between passion/obfuscation and provocation? A: PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION It is produced by an impulse which may cause provocation The provocation comes from the injured party The offense need not be immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof lasts until the moment the crime is committed It must immediately precede the commission of the crime.
Q: What are the distinctions between passion/obfuscation and irresistible force? A: PASSION OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE Mitigating
circumstance circumstance Exempting It cannot give rise to irresistible force because passion or obfuscation has no physical force. It requires physical force. The passion or obfuscation is on the offender himself It must come from a third person. It must arise from
lawful sentiments. The force used is unlawful.
Q: Can passion or obfuscation be raised as an exempting circumstance?
A: As a rule, passion or obfuscation can only be used as a mitigating circumstance. However, under Art. 247 (Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional Circumstances), it may be used as an exempting circumstance, if an injury is inflicted other than serious physical injuries and killing.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF