Article 13.

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant
Justifying circumstances
Self-defense/defense of relative/defense of stranger – unlawful aggression must be present for Art 13 to be
applicable. Other 2 elements not necessary. If 2 requisites are present – considered a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Example: Juan makes fun of Pedro. Pedro gets pissed off, gets a knife and tries to stab Juan. Juan grabs
his own knife and kills Pedro. Incomplete self-defense because although there was unlawful aggression
and reasonable means to repel was taken, there was sufficient provocation on the part of Juan. But
since 2 elements are present, it considered as privileged mitigating.
b. State of Necessity (par 4) avoidance of greater evil or injury; if any of the last 2 requisites is absent,
there’s only an ordinary Mitigating Circumstance.
Example: While driving his car, Juan sees Pedro carelessly crossing the street. Juan swerves to avoid him,
thus hitting a motorbike with 2 passengers, killing them instantly. Not all requisites to justify act were
present because harm done to avoid injury is greater. Considered as mitigating.
c. Performance of Duty (par 5)
Example: Juan is supposed to arrest Pedro. He thus goes to Pedro’s hideout. Juan sees a man asleep.
Thinking it was Pedro, Juan shot him. Juan may have acted in the performance of his duty but the crime
was not a necessary consequence thereof. Considered as mitigating.
Exempting circumstance
a. Minority over 9 and under 15 – if minor acted with discernment, considered mitigating
Example: 13 year old stole goods at nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown by the manner in
which the act was committed.
b. Causing injury by mere accident – if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite (without fault –
thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as mitigating because the penalty is lower than that
provided for intentional felony.
Example: Police officer tries to stop a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in the air. Bullet
ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area
was populated.
c. Uncontrollable fear – only one requisite present, considered mitigating
Example: Under threat that their farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took turns guarding it at night.
Pedro fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his identity. Juan was awakened
and shot the unidentified person. Turned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted
under the influence of fear but such fear was not entirely uncontrollable. Considered mitigating
2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the case of a minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art 192 of PD 903
Applicable to:
a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment
b. Offender over 15, under 18
c. Offender over 70 years
Age of accused which should be determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial
Various Ages and their Legal Effects
a. under 9 – exemptive circumstance
b. over 9, below 15 – exemptive; except if acted with discernment
c. minor delinquent under 18 – sentence may be suspended (PD 603)
d. under 18 – privileged mitigating circumstance
e. 18 and above – full criminal responsibility
f. 70 and above – mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution g. of death
sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (praeter
intentionam)
Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between means
employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences
Intention: as an internal act, is judged by the proportion of the means employed to the evil produced by the act,
and also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body.
Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury inflicted and (3) the attitude of mind when the accuser
attacked the other.
Example: Pedro stabbed Tomas on the arm. Tomas did not have the wound treated, so he died from loss
of blood.
Not applicable when offender employed brute force
Example: Rapist choked victim. Brute force of choking contradicts claim that he had no intention to kill
the girl.
Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes or
commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage.
In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere
physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating only when the victim dies.
Example: As part of fun-making, Juan merely intended to burn Pedro’s clothes. Pedro received minor
burns. Juan is charged with physical injuries. Had Pedro died, Juan would be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance.
Not applicable to felonies by negligence. Why? In felonies through negligence, the offender acts without intent.
The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable
felonies. There is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered as diminished.
Basis of par 3: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished
4. That the sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
anyone.
Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
Requisites:
a. Provocation must be sufficient.
1. Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be
proportionate to its gravity.
2. Sufficiency depends on:
the act constituting the provocation
the social standing of the person provoked
time and place provocation took place
3. Example: Juan likes to hit and curse his servant. His servant thus killed him. There’s mitigating
circumstance because of sufficient provocation.
4. When it was the defendant who sought the deceased, the challenge to fight by the deceased is NOT
sufficient provocation.
b. It must originate from the offended party
1. Why? Law says the provocation is “on the part of the offended party”
2. Example: Tomas’ mother insulted Petra. Petra kills Tomas because of the insults. No Mitigating
Circumstance because it was the mother who insulted her, not Tomas.
3. Provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not Mitigating
Circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled because the deceased from the moment he
fled did not give any provocation for the accused to pursue and attack him.
c. Provocation must be immediate to the act., i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked
Why? 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.
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
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
1. Requisites:
there’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
that the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
2. Lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the one doing the offense (proximate time, not
just immediately after)
3. Example: Juan caught his wife and his friend in a compromising situation. Juan kills his friend the next
day – still considered proximate.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION

Made directly only to the person Grave offense may be also against the
committing the felony offender’s relatives mentioned by law

Cause that brought about the Offended party must have done a grave
provocation need not be a grave offense offense to the offender or his relatives

Necessary that provocation or threat

immediately preceded the act. No time
interval May be proximate. Time interval allowed
More lenient in vindication because offense concerns the honor of the person. Such is more worthy of
consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation can’t be counted separately and independently
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation
Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement,
he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby dismissing the exercise of his will power.
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION are Mitigating Circumstances only when the same arise from lawful sentiments (not
Mitigating Circumstance when done in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness)
Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
a. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation
b. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge
c. The act must come from lawful sentiments
Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation
a. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
b. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
c. That the act was proximate to the criminal act
d. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation
Example: Juan saw Tomas hitting his (Juan) son. Juan stabbed Tomas. Juan is entitled to Mitigating Circumstance of
P&O as his actuation arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of his son.
The exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a duty is not the proper source of P&O.
Example: A policeman arrested Juan as he was making a public disturbance on the streets. Juan’s anger
and indignation resulting from the arrest can’t be considered passionate obfuscation because the
policeman was doing a lawful act.
The act must be sufficient to produce a condition of mind. If the cause of the loss of self-control was trivial and
slight, the obfuscation is not mitigating.
Example: Juan’s boss punched him for not going to work he other day. Cause is slight.
There could have been no Mitigating Circumstance of P&O when more than 24 hours elapsed between the alleged
insult and the commission of the felony, or several hours have passed between the cause of the P&O and the
commission of the crime, or at least ½ hours intervened between the previous fight and subsequent killing of
deceased by accused.
Not mitigating if relationship is illegitimate
The passion or obfuscation will be considered even if it is based only on the honest belief of the offender, even if
facts turn out to prove that his beliefs were wrong.
Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since the means that the offender has had time to ponder
his course of action.
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION arising from one and the same cause should be treated as only one mitigating
circumstance
Vindication of grave offense can’t co-exist w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION IRRESITIBLE FORCE

Mitigating Exempting

No physical force needed Requires physical force

From the offender himself Must come from a 3rd person

Must come from lawful sentiments Unlawful

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION

Produced by an impulse which

may be caused by provocation Comes from injured party

Offense, which engenders

perturbation of mind, need not
be immediate. It is only required
that the influence thereof lasts Must immediately precede the
until the crime is committed commission of the crime

Effect is loss of reason and self-

control on the part of the
offender Same
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that
he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.
2 Mitigating Circumstances present:
a) voluntarily surrendered
b) voluntarily confessed his guilt
If both are present, considered as 2 independent mitigating circumstances. Mitigate penalty to a greater extent
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
a) offender not actually arrested
b) offender surrendered to a person in authority or the latter’s agent
c) surrender was voluntary
Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender unconditionally to the authorities
Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the
accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the
surrender.
Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.
Example: Surrendered after talking to town councilor. Not V.S. because there’s an external stimulus
Conduct must indicate a desire to own the responsibility
Not mitigating when warrant already served. Surrender may be considered mitigating if warrant not served or
returned unserved because accused can’t be located.
Surrender of person required. Not just of weapon.
Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some
court/government/corporation/board/commission. Barrio captain/chairman included.
Agent of person in authority – person who by direct provision of law, or be election, or by appointment by
competent authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and
property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.
RPC does not make distinction among the various moments when surrender may occur.
Surrender must be by reason of the commission of the crime for which defendant is charged
Requisites for plea of guilty
a) offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
b) confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court)
c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution
plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea considered as
Mitigating Circumstance
plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating – must make plea at the first opportunity
plea during the preliminary investigation is no plea at all
even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to Mitigating Circumstance as long as
withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the fiscal could present his evidence
plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating Circumstance because to be voluntary plea of guilty, must be to the
offense charged
plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating
Circumstance
present Rules of Court require that even if accused pleaded guilty to a capital offense, its mandatory for court to
require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter
alia, Mitigating Circumstance
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect w/c thus
restricts his means of action, defense or communication w/ his fellow beings.
Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and
therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.
No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons
The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or communication with fellow
beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers.
The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the offenders do not have a complete freedom of action
therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender w/o
depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
Requisites:
a) illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power
b) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts
when the offender completely lost the exercise of will-power, it may be an exempting circumstance
deceased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation
10. And any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned
Examples of “any other circumstance”:
a) defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70 years old
b) outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense
c) impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND OBFUSCATION
d) voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender
e) extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity
NOT analogous:
a) killing wrong person
b) not resisting arrest not the same as voluntary surrender
c) running amuck is not mitigating
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from:
a) moral attributes of the offender
Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. Only Juan will be
entitled to Mitigating Circumstance
b) private relations with the offended party
Example: Juan stole his brother’s watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it was stolen. The circumstance
of relation arose from private relation of Juan and the brother. Does not mitigate Pedro.
c) other personal cause
Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by, helped the minor.
Circumstance of minority, mitigates liability of minor only.
Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the circumstances are
attendant.
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating
a) mistake in the blow
b) mistake in the identity of the victim
c) entrapment of the accused
d) accused is over 18 years old
e) performance of a righteous action
Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminally
liable