Article 12.

Exempting Circumstances
G.R. No. 199875 November 12, 2012
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versusEdwin Isla y Rossell, Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
On or about the 21st day of July, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, at around 3:00
oclock in the afternoon, the victim was inside her rented house together with her
two (2) children, aged 1 and 9 months old, respectively. She, the victim, then
noticed that the accused Edwin Isla was standing by the door of her kitchen. He
asked her what time her landlady would be arriving and she answered that she had
no idea. Thereafter, she opened the door of the kitchen, hoping that passersby
would see him inside the house. After fifteen (15) minutes, she was startled when
he suddenly poked a knife on her neck and pulled her inside the bedroom. By this
time, she noticed that she had already closed the window and the door of the living
room. She pleaded and begged for mercy but to no avail. She was warned not to
shout or resist otherwise she would be stabbed.
Inside the bedroom, she was made to lie down on the floor because there was no
bed. Isla placed himself on the top of her and then he removed her upper clothing.
He raised her bra, exposing her breasts and then kissed them. Eventually, he made
her spread her legs and had carnal knowledge with her.
While he was committing the dastardly act, she noticed a knife pointed at her.
The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of rape and frustrated murder.
The defense of insanity was not accepted, it was noted that he committed the
crimes during a lucid interval. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The CA did not give weight to the expert testimonies given by the two psychiatric
doctors.
Issue/s:
1) Is the petitioner entitled to exempting circumstances of insanity?
Held:
At the outset, the Court notes that there is no question as to whether or not the
victim was raped by Isla. The latter never denied this fact which can be gleaned
direct from his testimony.
One of the circumstances which will exempt one from criminal liability which is
when the perpetrator of the act was an imbecile or insane, unless the latter has

acted during lucid interval, the defense failed to overcome the presumption of
sanity. The testimonies from the psychiatric doctors, as qualified expert witnesses,
failed to support its claim of insanity. His mental examinations done four to six years
after the incident cannot be appreciated that he was suffering from such psychosis
immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. The defense of
insanity may be accepted as an exempting circumstance on the test of cognition,
which requires a complete deprivation of intelligence, not only of the will, in
committing the criminal act. His actions were with discernment presumably before,
during and after the commission of the crime. With regards to the stabbing, he
claimed that he had to use knife so he could have sexual intercourse with her and
had took place after the commission of the rape act. The Court finds itself unable to
agree for the crime of frustrated murder, the information alleged that the stabbing
was with treachery. Neither was there an abuse of superior strength.
The Supreme Court decision is affirmed with modifications.

G.R. No. 113691 February 6, 1998

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versusAlberto Medina y Catud, Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
On the evening of 20 May 1992, accused-appellant went to the house of his sister.
Upon his arrival, he saw the group of the offended party then engaged in a drinking
spree at the balcony of his sisters house. The accused-appellant declined the group
in joining them, however, he accepted the invitation of dancing with the Andres
Dalisay (+). As the dance and the party ended, the guests started to leave.
Accused-appellant left the house of his sister to head for his home which was more
or less 200 meters away. While walking along the path, the accused-appellant had
prompted by Dalisay to stop. Dalisay appeared to be drunken approached and
uttered words to the accused-appellant, hitting him also in the chest. Enraged,
accused-appellant prepared to fight when Dalisay threatened to kill him. Seeing the
danger out of it, the accused-appellant beat him to draw, took out his balisong and
stabbed Dalisay. It was only when Dalisay uttered words did accused-appellant stop.
Accused-appellant surrendered himself and the weapon on the same evening to the
authorities. On several occasions before, specifically during the latter part of 1981,
accused-appellant had exhibited unusual behaviors. His sister testified that on June
22, 1982 she brought her brother to the National Mental Hospital after the latter had
shown unusual conduct.
The trial court rejected the defense of insanity.
Issue/s:
1) Whether or not the court gravely erred in not acquitting accused-appellant
exempting his criminal liability on the ground of insanity?
Held:
Appellant insists that the trial court gravely erred in refusing to consider Dr. Adigue
as an expert witness, despite her academic qualifications. Appellant missed the
point. More than her qualifications as a psychologist, what really matters is the
failure of Dr. Adigue testimony to establish legal insanity on the part of the
appellant. Test results shows that subjects mental activity is functioning on the
normal level at the time of the evaluation. Verily, such results do not prove that the

alleged insanity of the appellant requires a complete deprivation of rationality in

committing the act. Thus, the trial court properly rejected appellant defense of
sanity. Appellant cannot claim exemption from criminal liability.
The appealed Decision is affirmed with modifications.
G.R. No. 1859843

March 3, 2010

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versusSusan Latosa, Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
On 05 February 2002 at around 2:00 in the afternoon, accused-appellant and her
husband Major Felixberto Latosa, Sr. (Felixberto) together with two (2) of their
children, Sassymae Latosa (Sassymae) and Michael Latosa (Michael), were at their
house in Fort Bonifacio. Sassymae saw the accused-appellant take their fathers gun
(Felixberto) from the cabinet and leave. She asked her mother where she was going
and if she could come along, but appellant refused. Sassymae was told to buy ice
cream at the commissary. Accused-appellant gave her money and asked her to
leave. After Sassymae left, appellant instructed Michael to follow his sister, but he
refused as he was hungry. Appellant insisted and further told Michael not to make
any noise as his father was sleeping. Nevertheless, appellant went back inside the
house and turned up the volume of the television and the radio to full. Moments
later, a certain Sgt. Ramos arrived and asked if something had happened in their
house. It was the accused-appellant had reported the shooting incident to Provost
Marshall Office. Their father was with a bullet wound on his head and a gun near his
left hand.
Felixberto Latosa, Jr., one (1) of the legitimate son of appellant and the victim, also
testified that sometime in December 2001, their father told him and his siblings
over dinner about a threat to their lives by a certain Col. Efren Sta. Inez.
Accused-appellant testimony claimed that she was asked to get the service pistol
from the cabinet adjacent to their bed. As she was handing the pistol to him it
suddenly fired, hitting Felixberto Sr.
Appellant denied the claim that she was having an affair with Col. Efren Sta. Inez.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing her husband
Felixberto, Sr. On appeal, CA upheld the decision of the RTC
Issue/s:

1) Whether or not the exempting circumstance of accident was established by

the accused-appellant?
Held:
The basis of appellants defense of accidental shooting is Article 12, paragraph 4 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which provides:
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. The following
are exempt from criminal liability:
xxxx
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.
Appellants manner of carrying the caliber .45 pistols negates her claim of due care
in the performance of an act. The location of the wound sustained by the victim
shows that the shooting was not merely accidental. The victim was lying down and
the fact that the gun was found near his left hand was not directly disputed by her.
We find it contrary to human nature that a newly awakened military would suddenly
ask his wife for his firearm, and even patiently wait for her return to the house,
when the said firearm was just inside the cabinet which, according to appellant, was
just about two meters away from his head.
The appellant held the gun in one hand and extended it towards her husband who
was still lying in bed. Assuming arguendo that appellant has never learned how to
fire a gun and was merely handing the firearm over the deceased, the muzzle is
never pointed to a person, basic firearms safety rule which appellant is deemed to
have already known since admitted, during trial, that she sometimes handed over
the gun to her husband. Assuming further that she was not aware of this basic rule,
it needed explaining why the gun would accidentally fire, when it should not, unless
there was pressure on the trigger.
In the instant case, the circumstantial evidence considered by the RTC and affirmed
by the CA satisfactorily established appellants intent to kill her husband and
sustained her conviction for the crime.
The SC decision is affirmed with modification.

G.R. No. 184601 November 12, 2012

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versusMarcial M. Malicdem, Accused-Appellant.
Facts:
On the night of 11 August 2002, as it was their practice after dinner, they met with
Wilson near the artesian well. At around 9:00 pm, while they were seated on the
septic tank, appellant arrived asking if they knew the whereabouts of his godson,
Rogelio Molina (Rogelio). They answered in the negative. They noticed that the
appellant was reeking of alcohol and was drunk. Appellant asked again for the
whereabouts of Rogelio. As they stood to leave, appellant suddenly embraces
Wilson and lunged a six-inch knife to the left part of his chest. When appellant
moved to strike again, Wilson was able to deflect this blow which resulted to a cut
on his right arms. Intending to help his friend, Bernardo was hit by the knife in his
stomach. In the course of aiding Wilson, Joel boxed the appellant. During the brawl,
Francisco Molina, Rogelios father, arrived at the scene, but was stabbed in the
stomach by appellant, Appellant ran away. Afterwards, Joel brought Wilson aboard a
police patrol car to the Region I Medical Center in Dagupan City where Wilson was
declared dead on arrival.
The RTC, after observing inconsistencies in the testimonies of the appellant and his
wife, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
Based on the summary facts by the RTC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the
defense failed to discharge its burden to prove unlawful aggression on the part of
Wilson by sufficient and satisfactory proof.
Issue/s:
1) Whether or not the appellant is entitled to both the justifying circumstance of
self-defense and exempting circumstance of accident?
Held:

The petitioner failed to prove self-defense, the inescapable conclusion is that he is

found guilty of homicide. The basis of the exemption in Article 12, paragraph 4 of
the Revised Penal Code the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or
intent, or the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. The swift turn of
events did not allow Wilson to defend himself, in effect, assuring appellant that he
complete the crime without risk to his own person.
It is an aberration for the petitioner to invoke the two defenses at the same time
because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no such defense as
accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law.