STO. NIÑO COLLEGE OF ORMOC, INC.

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CRIMINOLOGY

CLJ 3 – Criminal Law (Book 1)
Instructor: RHAHEZZA N. MAIDIN

MODULE 5
JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Chapter Two
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal 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 person defending himself.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity
in the same degrees and those 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 revocation 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 not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil 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 means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

1
 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.

SELF-DEFENSE

There is no crime committed, the act being justified.

In stating that the persons mentioned therein "do not incur any criminal liability," Article 11
recognizes the acts of such persons as justified. Such persons are not criminals, as there is
no crime committed.

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, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by
him to the satisfaction of the court.

Self-defense.
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon
him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself.
He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution. For, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it could not be disbelieved after
the accused himself had admitted the killing.

Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful.

Because it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its
citizens (and even foreigners, of course) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked.
On the other hand, it cannot be conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful
aggression without offering any resistance.

First requisite of self-defense.

The first requisite of self-defense is that there be unlawful aggression on the part of the
person injured or killed by the accused. It is an indispensable requisite. There can be no self-
defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression
against the person defending himself. For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that
we be assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be threatened with an attack
in an immediate and imminent manner, as, for example, brandishing a knife with which to
stab us or pointing a gun to discharge against us.

Aggression must be unlawful.

The first requisite of defense says that the aggression must be unlawful. There are two kinds
of aggression: (1) lawful, and (2) unlawful. The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right
in a more or less violent manner is an aggression, but it is lawful.

Meaning of unlawful aggression.

Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate
and imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is
either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.

Retaliation is not self-defense.

Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was
begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-
defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense. Thus, when unlawful aggression which has begun no longer
2
exists, because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to
kill or even to wound the former aggressor.

Second Requisite of Defense of Person or Right: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
This second requisite of defense presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which 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 imminent danger or repel 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 second requisite of defense means that (1) there be a necessity
of the course of action taken by the person making a defense, and (2) there be a
necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable. The reasonableness of either or both
such necessity depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and
extent of the aggression.

Third requisite of self-defense.

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

Reason for the third requisite of self-defense.

When the person defending himself from the attack by another gave sufficient provocation to
the latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression. Hence, to
be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the one defending himself
must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or
provoking the assailant.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

Relatives that can be defended.

1. Spouse.
2. Ascendants.
3. Descendants.
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the
same degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law,

and brother or sister-in-law.

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from
criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the same court.
3
 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
Art. 80 of this Code.

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with
the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody
of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be
committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.

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 act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.

7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.

Exempting circumstances.
1. Definition
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from
punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions
which make the act voluntary 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. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person must act with malice or negligence to
be criminally liable. One who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or intent
does not act with malice. On the other hand, one who acts without intelligence,
freedom of action or fault does not act with negligence.

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises.

Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances 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 circumstances mentioned in Art. 12 is a matter of defense and the same must
be proved by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

Imbecility distinguished from insanity.

This paragraph establishes the distinction between imbecility and insanity, because while the
imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can
be shown that he acted during a lucid interval. During lucid interval, 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. An imbecile within the

4
meaning of Art. 12 is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of
the will at the time of committing the crime.

To constitute insanity, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total
deprivation of the freedom of the will.
The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that the exempting circumstance of insanity
may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of
intelligence while committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that
he acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of 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. Thus, mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially if the
offender has not lost consciousness of his acts. At most, it is only a mitigating circumstance.
(Art. 13, par. 9)

Basis of paragraph 1.
The exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete absence of
intelligence, an element of voluntariness.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10630

"An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile
justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Social Welfare and Development,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes."

"SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the
time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall
be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

"A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her
birthdate.

"A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with
discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this Act.

"The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil
liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws."

Meaning of "discernment."
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor
fifteen years of age or under 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 circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and
behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and
even during the trial.

Basis of paragraphs 2 and 3.

5
The exempting circumstance of minority is based also on the complete absence of
intelligence.

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.

What is an 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 foreseeable
consequences. If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence.

Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done.

The exempting circumstance of Art. 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code refers to purely
accidental cases where there was absolutely no intention to commit the wrong done. It
contemplates a situation where a person is in the act of doing something legal, exercising
due care, diligence and prudence but in the process, produces harm or injury to someone
or something not in the least in the mind of the actor — an accidental result flowing out of
a legal act.

Basis of paragraph 4.
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 irresistible force.

This exempting circumstance presupposes 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.

Basis of paragraph 5.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 5 of Art. 12 is based on the complete absence of
freedom, an element of voluntariness. A person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.

Par. 6. — Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.

6
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:
1. That 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. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.

For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be invoked successfully, the

following requisites must concur: (a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must
be real and imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed.

Basis of paragraph 6.
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Art. 12 is also 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 person 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.

Basis of paragraph 7.
The circumstance in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 exempts the accused from criminal liability, because
he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime.
Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence. Hence, in paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 of Art. 12, the imbecile, insane, or minor, not having intelligence, does not act with intent. The
person acting under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 12, not
having freedom of action, does not act with intent. In paragraph 4 of Art. 12, it is specifically
stated that the actor causes an injury by mere accident without intention of causing it.

Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances.

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. In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime nor a
criminal. No civil liability, except in par. 4 (causing damage to another in state of
necessity).
2. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. 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
7
 prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause) of Art. 12. (See Art. 101 which does
not mention pars. 4 and 7 of Art. 12)