So Good day everyone!

Im here today to discuss the Ariticle 12 Paragraph 4 of Revised Penal Code, The
article 12 of revised penal code is exempting circumstance

First I'm gonna define what is exempting circumstances

Exempting circumstances.

1. Definition

Exempting circumstances (non-imputah-lity) 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. (Guevara)

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.

And now I will explain what is paragraph 4 of article 12 in Revised Penal Code.

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. (See People vs. Vitug, 8 CAR [2s] 905, 909)

The person must be performing a lawful act.

While defending himself against the unjustified assault upon his person made by his assailant, appellant
Galacgac fired his revolver at random, wounding two innocent persons.
Held: The discharge of a firearm in such a thickly populated place in the City of Manila being prohibited
and penalized by Article 155 of the Revised Penal Code, appellant Galacgac was not performing a lawful
act when he accidentally hit and wounded Marina Ramos and Alfonso Ramos. Hence, the exempting
circumstance provided for in Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, cannot be properly
invoked by appellant Galacgac. (People vs. Galacgac, 54 O.G. 1027)

The person performing a lawful act must do so with due care, without fault or negligence.

Appellant claims exemption from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury
by mere accident without fault or intention of doing it is exempted from criminal liability. But, this
exempting circumstance cannot be applied to the appellant because its application presupposes that
there is no fault or negligence on the part of the person performing the lawful act with due care,
whereas, in this case, the prosecution had duly established that the appellant was guilty of negligence.

Examples of accident.

U.S. vs. Tahedo

(15 Phil. 196)

Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild
chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who was a relative of the accused. The man who was injured
died.

Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act
executed with due care and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.

There is no question that the accused was engaged in the performance of a lawful act when the accident
occurred. He was not negligent or at fault, because the deceased was not in the direction at which the
accused fired his gun. It was not foreseeable that the slug would recoil after hitting the wild chicken.
A chauffeur, while driving his automobile on the proper side of the road at a moderate speed and with
due diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of his vehicle coming from the sidewalk
and crossing the street without any warning that he would do so. Because it was not physically possible
to avoid hitting him, the said chauffeur ran over the man with his car. It was held that he was not
criminally liable, it being a mere accident. (U.S. vs. Tayongtong, 21 Phil. 476)
Just as the truck then being driven by the accused was passing the slow-moving road roller, a boy about
10 or 12 years of age jumped from the step of the side board of the road roller directly in front of the
truck, and was knocked down, ran over and instantly killed. The accused was acquitted of all criminal
liability arising out of the unfortunate accident which resulted in the death of the boy. (U.S. vs. Knight,
26 Phil. 216)

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. (Albert)

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. (People vs. Gatela, 17 CAE [2s] 1047, 1055)

Case of negligence, not accident.

As the two persons fighting paid him no attention, the defendant drew a .45 caliber pistol and shot twice
in the air. The bout continued, however, so he fired another shot at the ground, but unfortunately the
bullet ricocheted and hit Eugenio Francisco, an innocent bystander, who died thereafter. Held: The
mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence. It is apparent the defendant wilfully
discharged his gun, without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstances that the district was
populated, and the likelihood that his bullet would glance over the hard pavement of the thoroughfare.
(People vs. Nocum, 77 Phil. 1018)

Comment: The consequence here was clearly foreseeable.

Accident and negligence, intrinsically contradictory.

In Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 375 (1999), the Supreme Court held that
an accident is a fortuitive circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human
agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstance
is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. Negligence, on the other hand, is the
failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution
and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand without which such other person suffers injury.
Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. (People vs.
Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004)

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.