Criminal Law Outline

Article 12
Art. 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.
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.

- In Exempting Circumstances, there is a

crime committed but no criminal liability
arises
- One who acts by virtue of any of the
exempting circumstances although
completely absence of any of the conditions
which constitutes free will or voluntariness of
the act, no criminal liability arises
- Burden of proof lies on the defendant
Par.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.
Basis of Paragraph 1
- Base on complete absence of intelligence,
an element of voluntariness
Imbecile
- exempt in all cases
- advance in age but
has a mental
development
comparable to that of
children between two
and seven years old
- completely
deprived of reason or
discernment and
freedom of the will at
the time of
committing the crime
(Art.12)

Insanity
- Not so exempt if it
can be shown he
acted during lucid
interval
- acts with
intelligence during
lucid interval
- to make insanity an
exempting
circumstance, there
should be complete
deprivation of
intelligence while
committing the act.
He acts without the
least discernment,
there be total
deprivation of
freedom of the will
- mere abnormality of
mental faculties is
not enough,
especially if the
offender has not lost
consciousness, to
make an exempting
circumstance

- Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not

enough, especially if the offender has not
lost consciousness
Procedure when the imbecile or the
insane committed a felony:
1. Court shall order his confinement in
one of the hospitals or asylum
2. Insane/imbecile shall not be
permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the court
3. Court has no power to permit the
insane person to leave without first
obtaining the opinion of the Director of
Health that he may be release without
danger
*The burden of proof lies on the
person who claimed insanity.*
Reason: Presumption is always
in favour of sanity
How much evidence is necessary to
overthrow the presumption of sanity?

1. To ascertain the mental condition at the

time of the act
It is permissible to receive evidence
of the condition of his mind during a
reasonable period both before and
after that time
2. Direct testimony is not required, nor are
specific acts of derangement essential to
establish insanity as a defence
3. We read the thoughts, the motives and
emotions of a person and come to determine
whether his acts conform to the practice of
people of sound mind
4. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and
convincing, will suffice.
Insanity at the
time of the
commission of the
felony
Exempt from
criminal liability

Insanity at the
time of the trial
Sane at the time of
the commission of
the crime BUT
become insane at the
time of trial
Liable criminally
Trial will be
suspended until
mental capacity be
restored to afford
him fair trial

Evidence of Insanity
- Must refer to the time preceding the act
under prosecution or to the moment of its
execution
- Evidence point to insanity following to the
commission of the crime, the accused cant
be acquitted
Presumed to be sane when he
committed it
- Insanity only occasional or intermittent
Presumption of its continuance
doesnt arise
He who relies on such
insanity proved at another time must
prove its existence also at the time of
the commission of the offence
- Defendant had lucid intervals
Presumed that the offence was
committed in one of them
- Person who has been adjudged insane, or
who has been committed to a hospital or
asylum for the insane
Presumed to continue to be insane
Dementia praecox
- Covered by the term insanity
- Homicidal attack is common

Reason: Delusions that hes being

interfered with sexually, or that his property
is being taken
- Unlawful act may be due to his mental
disease or mental effect, producing an
irresistible impulse
Schizophrenia
- Characterized by inability to distinguish
between fantasy and reality. Often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions
- Formerly called dementia praecox
- Recognizable through:
1. Odd and bizarre behaviour
2. Apparent aloofness
3. Periods of impulsive destructiveness
4. Immature and exaggerated
emotionality often ambivalently directed
- Common early symptoms:
1. aloofness
2. withdrawal behind barriers of
loneliness
3. hopelessness
4. hatred and fear
- Suffers from a feeling of rejection and an
intolerable lack of respect
- Frequently becomes neglectful of personal
care and cleanliness
Kleptomaniac
- Abnormal, persistent, impulse or tendency
to steal
- The case of a person suffering from
kleptomania must be investigated by a
competent alienist or psychiatrist to
determine whether the impulse to steal is
irresistible or not
- Unlawful act of the accused due to mental
disease or a mental defect, producing an
irresistible impulse, where accused lost the
power of his will which would enable him to
prevent himself doing the act
- considered as covered by the term
insanity
- Mental disease or mental defect of the
accused only diminishes the exercise of his
will-power AND did not deprive him of the
consciousness of his act
- Kleptomaniac, only a mitigating
circumstance
Epilepsy
- Chronic nervous disease characterized by
fits, occurring at intervals, attended by
convulsive motions of the muscles and loss
of consciousness.

- Not exempted from criminal liability

accused was not in an epileptic fit when he
committed an offence

- Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC impliedly

repealed by R.A. No. 9344 a.k.a. Juvenile
Justice and Welfare act of 2006

Paedophilia

R.A. No. 9344 a.k.a. Juvenile Justice

and Welfare act of 2006

- Mental disorder not synonymous with

insanity
- Person with paedophilia can still distinguish
between right and wrong
Amnesia
General rule: not a defence to a criminal
charge
Exception: Shown by competent proof
accused did not know the nature and quality
of his action and that it was wrong
- Failure to remember is in itself no proof of
the mental condition of the accused when
the crime was performed
Other cases of lack of Intelligence
1. Commuting a crime while in a dream
- act was committed while in a dream
- act was done without criminal intent
- Somnambulism a.k.a. Sleepwalking is
embraced in the plea of insanity and must be
clearly proven
2. Committing a crime while suffering from
malignant malaria
- Not criminally liable
Reason: illness affects the
nervous system
Par.2. A person under nine years of age.
R.A. No. 9344 a.k.a. Juvenile Justice and
Welfare act of 2006
- raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from 9 years old to 15
years old
- child 15 years of age or under are
exempt from criminal liability
- Shall be subject of to an
intervention program as
provided under Section 20
Basis for Paragraph 2
- Based on absence of intelligence
Par.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.
Basis of paragraph 3
- complete absence of intelligence

- Child 15 years of age under = exempt from

criminal liability
- Child be subject to intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of this
act
- Child above 15yrs. Old but below 18yrs. Old
= exempt from criminal liability and be
subject to intervention program
Exception: If acted with discernment,
child shall be subject to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance
with this Act
- Incumbent upon prosecution to prove
that a child above 15yrs. Old but
below 18yrs. Old acted with
discernment, in order for the minor not
to be entitled to this exempting
circumstances
- Civil liability is not exempted and shall be
enforce in accordance with existing laws
Periods of criminal liability
1. Absolute irresponsibility (Infancy) 15
years and below
2. Conditional responsibility 15 years and 1
day to 18 years
3. Full responsibility 18 years or over
(adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
4. Mitigated responsibility 15 years and 1
day to 18 years, the offender acting with
discernment; over 70 years of age
- Senility
- age of 70 years or over
- only mitigated responsibility
- cant be considered as similar to
infancy which is exempting
Child in conflict with the law
- A person who at the time of the commission
of the offence is below 18yrs. Old and 1 day
old
Discernment
- Capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offence to understand the
difference between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act
- 15 years of age and below who commits an
act prohibited by law
- Discernment that constitutes an
exception to the exemption;

A. His mental capacity to

understand the difference between
right and wrong
- Capacity may be known and
should be determined by taking
into consideration all the;
1. facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each
case
2. The very appearance,
attitude, comportment and
behaviour of minor, not only
before and during the
commission of the act, but also
after and even during trial

- Burden of proof of age lies on the person

alleging the age of the child
- If age is contested prior to filing of the
information in court
Case for determination of age under
summary proceeding may be filed
before family court
Shall render decision within
24hrs. from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings
- Cases involving a child
court make a categorical finding as
to the age of the child

Determination of discernment
- take into account the ability of the child to
understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and
the consequences of the wrongful act
Discernment Vs. Intent
Intent refers to desired act of person
Discernment relates to the moral
significance that person ascribes to the said
act
2 ways discernment is shown
1. Manner of committing the crime

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
Basis of Paragraph 4
- Based on lack of lack of negligence and
intent.
- Under this circumstance, a person doesnt
commit either intentional or a culpable
felony
Elements
1. A person is performing a lawful act

Ex. Minor committed crime at night to

avoid detection, he manifested discernment

2. With due care

2. Conduct of the offender

3. He causes an injury to another by mere

accident

Ex. Perverted character of the accused

and the reflected his satisfaction and elation
upon the accomplishment of his criminal act
Child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority and shall enjoy all
the rights of a child in conflict with the law
until proven to be 18 years old or older.

4. Without fault or intention of causing it

A person is performing a lawful act
Example:
A, defending himself against unjustified
assault, upon his person made by his
assailant, A then fired his revolver at
random, wounding two person
SC ruling: Not a lawful act
Example 2:

Determination of age
1. True copy of certificate of live birth
2. Baptismal certificate and school records
3. In the absence of the documents under
paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section due to
loss, destruction, or unavailability. Testimony
of the child, testimony of a member the
family related to the child by affinity or
consanguinity. Section 40, Rule 130 of the
Rules on Evidence, the testimonies of the
persons, the physical appearance, of the
child, and other relevant evidence, shall
suffice
Burden of proof of age

Defendant strike another with a gun in selfdefence and then it fired accidently and
seriously injured assailant
SC Ruling: Lawful Act
Example 3:
Act of drawing a weapon in the course of a
quarrel, not being in self defence
SC Ruling: Unlawful. It is light threat
Person performing an act must do so with
due care, without fault or negligence
- Any person who, while in the 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.

Accident
- Something that happens outside the sway
of our will
- Lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
- If the consequence are plainly foreseeable
Negligence
- Accident presupposes lack of intention to
commit the wrong done.
- Accident and negligence are intrinsically
contradictory; one cannot exist with the
other
Article 12(4) of the RPC refers to purely
accidental cases where there was no
absolutely no intention to commit the wrong
done
Par. 5. Any person who act under the
compulsion of irresistible force
Basis of paragraph 5
- based on complete absence of freedom, an
element of voluntariness
- presupposes that a person is compelled by
means of force or violence to commit a crime
Elements:
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force

1. Threat which causes the fear is of an evil

greater than or at least equal to, that which
he is required to commit
2. Promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would
have succumbed to it
Requisites to be concur in successfully
invoking circumstance of uncontrollable fear
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear is greater than or at least equal to
that is committed
- Person is compelled to commit a crime by
another but the compulsion is by means of
intimidation or threat, not force or violence
- Duress as a defence should be real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for ones life or
limb. Shouldnt be speculative, fanciful, or
remote fear
- Compulsion must be of such character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for
escape or self-defence in combat
- Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not
uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force VS. Uncontrollable fear
Irresistible force

2. Physical force must be irresistible

- Offender uses violence or physical force to

compel another person to commit a crime

3. Physical force must come from a third

person

Uncontrollable fear

- Must produce such an effect upon the

individual that it reduces him to a mere
instrument in spite of the resistance of the
person on whom it operates, it compels his
members to act and his mind to obey
- Irresistible force can never consist in an
impulse or passion or obfuscation. It must
consist of an extraneous force coming from a
third person
- Person who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear or equal or greater injury,
is exempt from criminal liability
Nature of force required irresistible force
to reduce actor to a mere instrument who
acts not only without will but also against his
will
Par. 6. Any person who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
Basis of paragraph 6
- complete absence of freedom
- Actus me invicto factus non est meus actus
(An act done by me against my will is not my
act)
Elements

- employs intimidation or threat in

compelling another to commit a crime
Par. 7. Any person who fails to perform
an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful insuperable cause.
Basis of Paragraph 7 of Article 12
- exempts accused from criminal liability
because he acts without intent, third
condition of voluntariness in intentional
felony
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

Insuperable Cause
- A cause which prevents a person to do what
the law requires.
Example:
So you learned about a conspiracy against
the government, you're supposed to report it
to the authorities. If you do not do that, that

is misprision of treason. The problem here is

a priest was the one who learned about the
conspiracy through the confessional. Unya
ang pari is a Philippine citizen, so he is
supposed to report. But hindi niya magawa.
Why? Because that information relayed to
him is what? That is privileged. Priestpenitent privilege. You cannot be compelled
to divulge that information.
Now all these paragraphs in Article 12, the
offender is exempted from criminal liability.
But there are other causes which may
exempt a person from criminal liability which
are not found in Article 12. They are called
absolutory causes.

- An absolutory case
Entrapment
- A practice whereby a law enforcement
agent induces a person to commit a criminal
offense that the person would have
otherwise been unlikely to commit.
- It is a conduct that is generally discouraged
and thus, in many jurisdictions, is a possible
defence against criminal liability.

Those where the act committed is a crime

but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Instigation
- Instigator
practically induces
the would be
accused into the
commission of the
offence and himself
becomes the coprincipal

Entrapment
- ways and means
are resorted to for
the purpose of
trapping and
capturing the law
breaker in the
execution of his
criminal plan

- Exempting not because of Article 12,

exempting because of public policy.

- accused must be
acquitted

What are the cases covered?

- Public officer or a
private detective
induces an
INNOCENT person to
commit a crime and
would arrest him
upon or after the
commission of the
crime by the latter

- No bar to the
prosecution and
conviction of the law
breaker

Absolutory causes

1. One is Article 6 where the offender

desisted. Kung nag desist ka, there is no
criminal liability. As long as, of course, you
haven't reached the objective phase.
Subjective phase pa lang. That is sort of a
reward given to a person who, on the verge
of a crime, heeds the call of his conscience
and turns to the path of righteousness.
2. Another is Article 7. Light felony
which is not against person or property in
attempted or frustrated stage. That serves to
exempt the offender from criminal liability.
3. Another is when the accessory is a
relative of the principal under Article 20.
4. Also, when there are legal grounds
for arbitrary detention under 124.
5. When there are legal grounds for
trespass to dwelling under 280.

- Law enforcer
conceives the
commission of the
crime and suggests
to the accused who
adopts the idea and
carries it into
execution
- Its an absolutory
case

8. Where the offender married the

offended party in cases involving crime
against chastity and rape.
9. Mistake of fact is absolutory.
10. And of course, instigation.

Instigation is absolutory
- The act by which one incites another to do
something, as to injure a third person, or to
commit some crime or misdemeanour, to
commence a suit or to prosecute a criminal.

- Person has planned,

or is about to
commit, a crime and
ways and means are
resorted to by a
public officer to trap
and catch the
criminal
- legal effects do not
exempt the criminal
from liability
- Commonly done by
police officers

6. Where theft, swindling or malicious

mischief if committed against a relative,
Article 332. There is only civil liability.
7. Of course, the famous Article 247. Where
spouse or minor daughter was surprised in
the act of sexual intercourse with another
person.

- The means
originates from the
mind of the criminal.
The idea and the
resolve come from
him

- Entrapment is not a
defence
What are the complete defenses in criminal
cases?
1.
Where any of the essential elements
of the crime charged is not proved by the
prosecution and the elements proved do not
constitute any crime.
2.
When the act of the accused falls
under the justifying circumstances.
3.
When the act of the accused falls
under any of the exempting circumstances.
4.

Absolutory causes.

5.
Where the guilt of the accused is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6.

Prescription of crimes

7.
Pardon by the offended party before
the institution of criminal action in crime
against chastity.