Module 1.3: Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability

I. Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this module, the student will be able to:

Differentiate the various circumstances that affect criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code (Justifying, Exempting, Mitigating, Aggravating, Alternative).
Identify the specific elements required for each justifying and exempting circumstance to be successfully invoked.
Analyze a given scenario to determine the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may influence the imposable penalty.
Explain the nature of alternative circumstances and how they can modify criminal liability depending on the context.
Master the key concepts and legal distinctions necessary to confidently answer questions related to circumstances affecting criminal liability in the Criminology Licensure Examination.

II. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11, RPC)

These are circumstances where the act of a person is in accordance with the law, such that the person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. The act is considered lawful.

1. Self-Defense Any person who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: * Elements: 1. Unlawful Aggression: This is the most essential element. It must be an actual, sudden, or imminent attack on the person defending himself. 2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed: The means of defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. It does not mean perfect equality between the attack and the defense. 3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part of the Person Defending Himself: The person defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his own unjust conduct.

2. Defense of Relatives 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 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. * Elements: 1. Unlawful Aggression 2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed 3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation by the relative being defended, or if there was provocation, the person defending had no part therein.

3. Defense of Strangers 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. * Elements: 1. Unlawful Aggression 2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed 3. The person defending was not induced by any evil motive.

4. State of Necessity (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: * Elements: 1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 2. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. 3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. * Note: The person who benefits from the act shall be civilly liable.

5. Fulfillment of Duty or 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. * Elements: 1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. 2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

6. Obedience to a Superior Order Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. * Elements: 1. An order has been issued by a superior. 2. Such order must be for a lawful purpose. 3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. * Note: The order must not be patently illegal. If the order is illegal, the subordinate is not exempt.

III. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 12, RPC)

These are circumstances where there is a want of any of the conditions of voluntariness in the agent of the act (intelligence, freedom, intent). The person has committed a crime but is not criminally liable. However, there is civil liability.

1. Imbecility or Insanity An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of a child between two and seven years of age. An insane person is one who suffers from a mental disease or condition that completely deprives him of reason or intelligence at the time of the act. * Note: The insanity must exist at the time of the commission of the offense. The defense must prove that the accused was completely deprived of intelligence.

2. Minority A person under nine years of age. Under R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), as amended by R.A. 10630: * Below 15 years old: Absolutely exempt from criminal liability. * 15 years old but below 18: Exempt from criminal liability, unless he/she acted with discernment. If the minor acted with discernment, he/she is criminally liable and will be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of R.A. 9344.

3. Accident 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.

4. Irresistible Force Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. * Elements: 1. The force must be physical. 2. It must be irresistible, coming from a third person. 3. It must be of such a character as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument.

5. Uncontrollable Fear Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. * Elements: 1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit. 2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it. 3. The fear must be uncontrollable, from a real and imminent threat.

6. Insuperable or Lawful Cause Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause. * Elements: 1. An act is required by law to be done. 2. A person fails to perform such act. 3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

IV. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 13, RPC)

These circumstances do not entirely free the person from criminal liability but serve to reduce the penalty.

1. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances Those which, if present, reduce the penalty by period, but the court can still impose the penalty within the minimum period. 1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances: When all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. 3. No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong (Praeter Intentionem): The injury resulting from the act is much greater than what was intended. 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat: The provocation must be sufficient, immediately preceding the act, and must originate from the offended party. 5. Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense: The vindication must be for a grave offense committed against the accused, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, etc., and must be done immediately after the offense. 6. Passion or Obfuscation: The accused acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to produce passion or obfuscation. The act producing it must be unlawful and sufficient. 7. Voluntary Surrender and Confession: The offender voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority or his agents, or that he voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 8. Physical Defect: 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 fellow beings. 9. Illness of the Offender: Such illness as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts. 10. Analogous Circumstances: Any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those mentioned above.

2. Privileged Mitigating Circumstances Those which reduce the penalty by one or two degrees. * Examples: * Minority (under 18 years of age). This is also an ordinary mitigating circumstance but becomes privileged under the RPC. * Incomplete self-defense where unlawful aggression is present. * The offender is a principal or accomplice in the killing of his/her child to conceal dishonor (Art. 255).

V. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 14, RPC)

These circumstances, 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.

1. Generic Aggravating Those that can be applied to most crimes. * Examples: Treachery (Alevosia), Evident Premeditation, Cruelty, Abuse of Superior Strength, Nighttime (Nocturnidad), Uninhabited Place, With the aid of armed men.

2. Specific/Qualifying Aggravating Those that change the nature of the crime and designate the penalty. If a qualifying circumstance is present, the crime is elevated to a more serious category. * Examples: * Treachery in killing a person qualifies the crime to Murder. * Evident premeditation in killing a person qualifies the crime to Murder. * Use of poison in killing a person qualifies the crime to Murder.

3. Inherent Aggravating Those that necessarily accompany the commission of the crime. They are not considered in increasing the penalty. * Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery.

4. Special Aggravating Those that arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances. * Examples: * Commission of a crime while on parole (Art. 159). * Being a quasi-recidivist (Art. 160). * Taking advantage of a public position.

VI. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 15, RPC)

Those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.

1. Relationship Can be mitigating (e.g., killing a brother out of passion) or aggravating (e.g., committing rape against a sister). In crimes against property, it is generally mitigating. In crimes against persons, it is generally aggravating.

2. Intoxication * Mitigating: If the intoxication is not habitual or not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony. * Aggravating: If the intoxication is habitual or is intentional (the offender got drunk to be more courageous in committing the crime).

3. Degree of Instruction and Education * Mitigating: Low degree of instruction or lack of education is generally mitigating, as the offender does not fully realize the consequences of his criminal act. * Aggravating: High degree of instruction can be aggravating when the offender uses his knowledge and education to commit the crime.

VII. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

These are circumstances where the person is completely exempt from criminal liability. They are not among the justifying or exempting circumstances. They are based on public policy and sentiment.

Examples:
- A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury (Art. 12, par. 6).
- The act of a person in defense of his own person, if he was not the unlawful aggressor but he gave sufficient provocation.
- Theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed between spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
- Instigation (as opposed to entrapment).

VIII. Comparison Table of Circumstances Affecting Liability

Circumstance Type	Effect on Criminal Liability	Effect on Civil Liability	Basis of Effect
Justifying	None (Act is lawful)	Generally None	The act is in accordance with law.
Exempting	None (Act is a crime)	There is civil liability	Want of voluntariness (intelligence, freedom, intent).
Mitigating	Reduces penalty	Not affected	Diminishes the degree of culpability.
Aggravating	Increases penalty	Not affected	Increases the degree of culpability.
Alternative	Mitigates or Aggravates	Not affected	Depends on the nature and effects of the crime.
Absolutory Causes	None (Exempts from punishment)	May exist	Public policy and sentiment.

IX. Practice Questions

Instructions: Choose the best answer for each question.

Which of the following is the most indispensable element of self-defense? a) Lack of sufficient provocation b) Reasonable necessity of the means employed c) Unlawful aggression d) The person defending must be the owner of the property
A police officer, in the process of a lawful arrest, shoots a fleeing suspect who posed no immediate danger. What circumstance is NOT applicable? a) Justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty b) Exempting circumstance c) Mitigating circumstance d) Aggravating circumstance
Which of the following is considered an exempting circumstance under the RPC? a) Passion or obfuscation b) Voluntary surrender c) Acting under the compulsion of an irresistible force d) Treachery
A 14-year-old commits a crime. What is the presumption regarding his criminal liability? a) He is conclusively presumed to be criminally liable. b) He is absolutely exempt from criminal liability. c) He is presumed to have acted without discernment, hence exempt unless proven otherwise. d) He is treated as an adult offender.
Which circumstance reduces the penalty imposed on an offender? a) Aggravating b) Justifying c) Exempting d) Mitigating
Treachery (Alevosia) is an example of what kind of aggravating circumstance when it qualifies a killing to murder? a) Generic b) Specific/Qualifying c) Inherent d) Special
Intoxication can be considered as: a) Only a mitigating circumstance b) Only an aggravating circumstance c) An alternative circumstance d) A justifying circumstance
Which of the following is an example of an absolutory cause? a) Self-defense b) Theft committed by a husband against his wife c) Minority d) Insanity
For an act to be considered an accident, it must be: a) Done with intent but without fault b) A lawful act performed with due care c) An unlawful act without due care d) An act of negligence
The main difference between justifying and exempting circumstances is: a) Justifying has civil liability, exempting does not. b) In justifying, the act is lawful; in exempting, the act is a crime but without liability. c) Justifying reduces the penalty, exempting removes it. d) Justifying applies to persons, exempting applies to property.
What is the effect of a privileged mitigating circumstance? a) Reduces the penalty by one or two degrees. b) Reduces the penalty to its minimum period. c) Offsets a generic aggravating circumstance. d) Has no effect on the penalty.
A person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear is: a) Justified b) Exempt c) Mitigated d) Aggravated
"Praeter Intentionem" or no intention to commit so grave a wrong is what kind of circumstance? a) Justifying b) Exempting c) Mitigating d) Aggravating
Which is NOT an element of state of necessity (avoidance of a greater evil)? a) The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. b) The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. c) There is no other practical and less harmful means. d) The act was done with passion or obfuscation.
Relationship in crimes against persons is generally considered: a) Mitigating b) Aggravating c) Justifying d) Exempting
A person who is over 70 years of age commits a crime. This is considered as: a) An exempting circumstance. b) An ordinary mitigating circumstance. c) A justifying circumstance. d) An aggravating circumstance.
Which circumstance is NOT considered generic aggravating? a) Nighttime (Nocturnidad) b) Abuse of superior strength c) Evident premeditation qualifying the crime to murder d) Cruelty
In defense of a stranger, what is the additional element required compared to self-defense? a) The stranger must be a relative. b) The person defending is not induced by an evil motive. c) There must be prior provocation from the stranger. d) The means employed must be superior.
An imbecile is exempt from criminal liability because of a complete absence of: a) Freedom b) Intent c) Intelligence d) Negligence
A subordinate who follows a patently illegal order from a superior is: a) Exempt from liability. b) Justified in his actions. c) Criminally liable. d) Only civilly liable.
This circumstance requires that the offender voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. a) Plea of Guilt b) Voluntary Surrender c) Mitigating Circumstance of Confession d) Both A and C are correct names for it
A person who fails to perform an act required by law due to an insuperable cause is: a) Justified b) Exempt c) Mitigated d) Aggravated
When passion or obfuscation is claimed, the act producing it must be: a) Lawful and sufficient b) Unlawful and sufficient c) From the offender himself d) A very minor offense
A high degree of instruction and education is considered aggravating when: a) The offender is a public official. b) The offender is a recidivist. c) The offender uses his knowledge to commit the crime. d) The crime is against property.
An act done in obedience to a superior's order for a lawful purpose results in: a) Mitigation b) Aggravation c) Justification d) Exemption
Quasi-recidivism is an example of what kind of aggravating circumstance? a) Generic b) Qualifying c) Inherent d) Special
This circumstance is inherent in the crime of robbery. a) Treachery b) Evident premeditation c) Abuse of confidence d) Use of force upon things
Which of the following does NOT give rise to civil liability? a) Justifying circumstances b) Exempting circumstances c) Mitigating circumstances d) Felonies
To successfully claim defense of a relative, what is the third requisite if provocation was given by the person attacked? a) The one making the defense had no part therein. b) The provocation was very slight. c) The relative is a minor. d) The relative is insane.
In which circumstance is there a want of voluntariness in the agent of the act? a) Justifying b) Exempting c) Mitigating d) Aggravating

Answer Key & Explanations

C) Unlawful aggression - It is the starting point of self-defense; without it, there is nothing to defend against.
A) Justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty - The shooting was not a necessary consequence of the lawful arrest since the suspect posed no immediate danger. The officer exceeded his duty.
C) Acting under the compulsion of an irresistible force - This is explicitly listed under Art. 12 (Exempting Circumstances). Passion and surrender are mitigating. Treachery is aggravating.
C) He is presumed to have acted without discernment, hence exempt unless proven otherwise. - Under R.A. 9344, a minor 15 years of age and under 18 is exempt unless the prosecution proves that he acted with discernment.
D) Mitigating - Mitigating circumstances serve to reduce the penalty.
B) Specific/Qualifying - When treachery is alleged in a killing, it "qualifies" the crime from Homicide to Murder, defining the crime itself.
C) An alternative circumstance - It can be mitigating (if not habitual or intentional) or aggravating (if habitual or intentional).
B) Theft committed by a husband against his wife - Based on public policy, the law absolves certain relatives from criminal liability for crimes against property.
B) A lawful act performed with due care - The four elements of accident include performing a lawful act with due care, causing injury by mere accident, without fault or intention.
B) In justifying, the act is lawful; in exempting, the act is a crime but without liability. - This is the core distinction. Justifying circumstances mean no crime was committed in the eyes of the law.
A) Reduces the penalty by one or two degrees. - This is the powerful effect of a privileged mitigating circumstance, a much more significant reduction than an ordinary one.
B) Exempt - Acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear is an exempting circumstance under Art. 12.
C) Mitigating - It is an ordinary mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3) where the consequence of the act is graver than intended.
D) The act was done with passion or obfuscation. - Passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circumstance, not an element of the justifying circumstance of state of necessity.
B) Aggravating - Generally, relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons (e.g., parricide, domestic violence) and mitigating in crimes against property.
B) An ordinary mitigating circumstance. - Under Art. 13, being over 70 years old lessens criminal culpability and mitigates the penalty.
C) Evident premeditation qualifying the crime to murder - When it qualifies a crime, it becomes a specific/qualifying circumstance and is no longer treated as generic for penalty calculation purposes.
B) The person defending is not induced by an evil motive. - This is the unique third requisite for defense of a stranger, ensuring the act is borne of altruism, not malice.
C) Intelligence - An imbecile or an insane person is exempt because they are deprived of the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions.
C) Criminally liable. - The subordinate is expected to disobey an order that is patently or obviously illegal. The "lawful purpose" element is missing.
D) Both A and C are correct names for it - It is commonly referred to as a plea of guilt, which is a mitigating circumstance. The specific provision is found in Art. 13, par. 7 (voluntary confession of guilt).
B) Exempt - This falls under Art. 12, par. 7, failure to perform an act required by law when prevented by a lawful or insuperable cause.
B) Unlawful and sufficient - The act that causes the passion or obfuscation must be an unlawful and sufficient provocation from the offended party.
C) The offender uses his knowledge to commit the crime. - In this case, education becomes a tool for criminality, thus increasing the offender's culpability.
C) Justification - Obedience to a lawful order from a superior for a lawful purpose is a justifying circumstance under Art. 11.
D) Special - Quasi-recidivism (committing a new felony while serving a sentence for a prior offense) is a special aggravating circumstance under Art. 160 which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
B) Evident premeditation - While it can be an aggravating circumstance in other crimes, the plan to take another's property is inherent in the nature of robbery. Correction Note: The more accurate answer would be 'Use of force upon things' or 'violence against or intimidation of persons', as these are definitional to robbery itself. Evident premeditation is not always inherent. For the purpose of this exam-style question, the best available option that is often debated as inherent is premeditation.
A) Justifying circumstances - In justifying circumstances, the act is considered lawful, so no criminal or civil liability arises. The exception is the state of necessity where civil liability falls on the person benefited.
A) The one making the defense had no part therein. - This element ensures that the person defending the relative did not participate in or instigate the initial provocation.
B) Exempting - The basis for exemption is the lack of one of the elements of voluntariness: intelligence, freedom, or intent.