Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability

Absolutory cause – has the effect of an exempting circumstance as it is predicated on the lack of
voluntariness.

Extenuating circumstances – has the same effect of mitigating circumstance.

Art. 258 in the crime of abortion – the liability of a pregnant woman will be mitigated if her purpose is to
conceal dishonour. However, such circumstance is not available to the parents of the pregnant woman.
Meaning, only person who can claim extenuating circumstance of concealment of dishonour is only the
pregnant woman in case of abortion under art. 258.

Article 333 Adultery – if the person guilty of adultery committed the same crime, because she was
abandoned by the husband without justification, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.

Infanticide – concealment of dishonour is an extenuating circumstance in so far as the pregnant woman

and the maternal grandparents are concerned.

Justifying Circumstances - the acts of the person is said to be in accordance with the law such that a
person is deemed not to have committed a crime and is therefore free from both criminal as well as civil
liability save for one, the avoidance of greater evil or injury also known as state of necessity.

1. Self Defense
2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Strangers
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Fulfilment of duty or exercise of right of office
6. Obedience to the order of superior

 If the respondent invokes self defense in order to avoid criminal liability, the respondent
practically admits assaulting the person who dies claiming on the other hand self defense.
 The elements of justifying circumstances must be proven in court by clear and convincing
evidence. The proper forum to show the URL are all present is in court. It must be elevated in
court, because the respondent practically admitted the killing, only that, in order to escape
criminal liability they are saying that the elements in defense are present or obtaining.
 In cases where the accused interposes justifying circumstance, the burden is on the prosecution.
It remains to be in the prosecution notwithstanding of the reverse trial. After the presentation
of the respondent of the evidence in chief, what is shifted is the burden of evidence to show on
the part of the defense that all the elements are present by clear and convincing evidence.

 People vs Rojas February 2016.

  The burden of proving the existence of the elements of the justifying circustances is shifted to
the accused because he who asserts, not he who denies must prove the same.

 Basis of justifying circumstances is the lack of criminal intent. The act does not make the doer
guilty unless the mind is criminal or the mind is guilty, that being the case there is no crime,
there being no crime, there is no criminal.

 One instance where civil liability is present under the justifying circumstances. General Rule:
Since there is no crime, necessarily there is no civil liability ex delicto.

Civil Liability in Paragraph 4 : Civil liability may be adjudged against those who benefited from
the act which caused damage to the property of the victim but spared their own properties the
consequent damages (Avoidance of Greater Evil or State of Necessity)

Rugas vs People 2004

- SC ruled that a slap on the face is considered an unlawful aggression because the face
represents a person and his dignity and it is a serious physical attack.

People vs Narvais 1983

- Court ruled that the defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack on the
property coupled with the attack on the person of the owner of the premises, provided that all
the elements for justification must be present. If not all present or one is missing, that would
result to an incomplete self defense – it becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Should one of the elements for justifying circumstance to trigger, be lacking, it becomes a privileged
mitigating circumstance provided the unlawful aggression is present.

Del Castillo case 169084 January 18, 2012

- Rule consistently adhered to in the Philippines is that, when the accused’s defense is self
defense he practically or thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, thus it
becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the
court.

In case of a duel, self defense is not feasible. The parties are considered aggressors of each other.

Unlawful aggression - constant requisite that must be present coupled with RL.

For unlawful aggression to be appreciated there must be actual, sudden and unexpected attack or
imminent danger thereof not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and that the accused must
present proof of a positively strong act of real aggression.
People vs Campos and Acabo 2011

- No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was
accepted, but aggression which is ahead of a stipulated time and place is unlawful.

Elements of Unlawful aggression

1. Physical or Material attack or assault

2. That attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent
3. Attack or assault must be unlawful

Mapait 2011 case.

Lawful aggression – fulfilment of a duty or exercise of the right in more or less violent manner.

Ex. Police performing their duty.

However, if the public officer exceeded his authority he may become the unlawful aggressor.

2 types of unlawful aggression

1. Actual or Material aggression – an attack with physical force or a weapon, an offensive act that
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
2. Imminent unlawful aggression – attack that is impending or at the point of happening. Must not
consist in a mere threatening attitude only.

Test for the presence of unlawful aggression

“ whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person
defending himself”

Samuya case 2015

- SC did not appreciate self defense as there was absence of unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim at the time of the incident. The court further held that without unlawful aggression
there can be no self defense whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression must be
actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger and not merely in threatening or
intimidating attitude.

Mistake of Fact may be appreciated.

People vs Guttierez

- To constitute an element of self defense, the unlawful aggression must come directly or
indirectly from the person who subsequently attacked by the accused. It must emanate from
the person subsequently attacked by the accused.

Requisites of Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

 1. Nature nag quality of the weapon used by the aggressor
2. Physical condition, character size and other circumstances of both the offender and the
defender.
3. The place and occasion of the assault.

Note: Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the
aggressor is not required. What the law requires is what we call rational equivalence. Rational
equivalence as mentioned in Espinosa vs People (2010), Reasonable necessity of the means employed
does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and the defense.

Several factors taken into consideration whether means employed is reasonable or not.

1. Means were used to prevent or repel the attack

2. Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
3. Means must be reasonable and reasonableness is a question of fact. However, should be
generally proportionate to the force of the aggressor.

Lack of Sufficient provocation – sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending
himself and it must immediately precede the aggression.

Instances where there can be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by the person defending himself or even if
provocation was given, it is not sufficient. (There may be provocation but not sufficient)
2. Even if provocation was given by the person defending himself it was not the proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression ( like if there was lapse of time)

Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its
commission.

How is self defense different with retaliation?

1. In retaliation, the unlawful aggression already ceased to exist. In self defense, unlawful
aggression still exists.

Retreat to the wall doctrine – emphasizes that it is the duty of a person attacked or assailed to retreat as
far as he can before he is justified in meeting force with force.

Stand ground when in the right doctrine – a person is entitled to do whatever he believes is necessary in
order to protect himself from great bodily harm. (THIS IS WHAT IS FOLLOWED IN THE PHILIPPINES)

RA 9262

In the case of People vs Henosa, SC laid down the guidelines of BWS

A woman who is repeatedly subject to any forceful physical or psychological behaviour by a man who
coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern for her rights is considered as a
battered woman.

The husband abuser and the battered wife, the victim, must go through battering cycle at least twice,
such cycle is called the tension building phase, the acute battering incident and the tranquil or loving
phase.

To be classified as a battered woman, couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice, any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once in her life time. If it occurs the
second time and she remains in that situation she is defined as a battered woman.

Battery – is an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical,
psychological or emotional distress. The battered woman syndrome as enunciated in the case of people
vs henosa, is characterized by the so called cycle of violence which has 3 phases.

1st phase – Tension building.

2nd phase – Acute battering incident (actual na pambubugbog)

3rd phase – Tranquil or loving phase (panunuyo stage)

The Defense must prove that all the 3 phases of cycle of violence characterizing the relationship of the
parties are present. The victim survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not
incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances for self defense under RPC. Basis is Section 26 of RA 9262.

Only certified psychologists or psychiatrists can prove the existence of BWS symptoms.

BWS applied to

1. wife

2.former wife,

3. woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or

4. woman with whom he has a common child or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate
within or without the family abode.

Defense of Relatives

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had no
part therein.
 Relatives covered are;
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate or adopted brothers and sisters
5. Relatives by affinity in the same degree (ascendants in law, mother in law, grandmother in
law)
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

Jurisprudence

- Art. 332 as an absolutory cause. Persons exempted by reason of relationship if the crime involve
is theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Form of commission must be in simple form for
absolutory to apply.
- Death of one spouse does not terminate the relationship by affinity established between the
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased. As far as the absolutory cause under
art. 332 , must be simple theft, simple estafa, simple malicious mischief for absolutory cause to
apply.

Defense of a Stranger

- Unlawful aggression.
- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it.
- The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive in attacking
the victim.

Strangers – any person not included in the enumeration in defense of relatives under paragraph 2 of Art.
11

State of Necessity (Avoidance of greater Evil)

Requisites:

1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.

2. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
4. There must be no contribution on the part of the accused what caused the evil to arise.

State of necessity must not have been brought about by the imprudence or negligence by the one
invoking the justifying circumstances.

Doctrine of Self-help (Art. 249 of NCC)

State of Necessity vs Damnum Absque Injuria

Fulfilment of duty
Requisites:

1. Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right of office.
2. Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of
duty or lawful exercise of such right.

Obedience to an order issued for some other lawful purpose

1. Order has been issued by a superior

2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

To apply, subordinate must not know of the unlawful purpose.