Battered Woman Syndrome – Repeatedly subjected to physical or
psychological abused from the husband does to a wife/woman with
intimate relation with a man
In order that a person, be considered a battered woman - Should have
at least 2 battering cycle, to qualify as a battered woman. This is
emphasized in an actual provision of the law. – exception to the rule
that all requisites should be present in claiming self-defense
Exempting Circumstances: Art. 12
The following are exempt from any criminal or civil liability even if
none of the requisites of the justifying circumstances are present:
1. Insane person or imbecile
2. Person under the age of 9
3. Person over 9 years of age and under 15, unless he has
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Article 192 of P.D. 603
 Numbers 2 and 3 has already been amended by RA 9344
If the age of the minor is under 18, 15 years old and below, the minor
is exempt from criminal liability, but he undergoes intervention
program.
Over 15 and under 18 is also exempt if he doesn’t act with
discernment. But he undergoes intervention program.
Over 15 and under 18, but he acted with discernment, then he will be
subject to diversion program
Acted without discernment, minor, below 18 – intervention program
(exempt)
Acted with discernment, over 15 and under 18 – diversion program
without the participation of the court if the penalty does not exceed 6
years.
Diversion program – conducted by the local social welfare
development officer together with the barangay captain; where the
minor undergoes mediation, family conferencing, conciliation
Intervention program – supervised by the local social welfare
development officer; no role of the Court
If the accused commits a heinous crime, he is placed in a detention
center (Bahay Pag-Asa) – Intensive intervention program
- where the minor who committed rape, robbery, murder
Question: what is the liability of a minor under 18?
Answer: under 18, if he does not act with discernment, he is totally
exempt; but, if he is over 15 and under 18, if he acts with discernment,
then in this case, he will not be exempt. He undergoes diversion
program.
o 15 and below, no need for discernment
Question: How do you determine if the minor acts with discernment?
Answer: if he understands the difference between right and wrong.
Paragraph 4 of Article 12
This person while performing a lawful act, with due care, causes
an injury without fault or intention of causing it will be exempt (by
mere accident)
The requirement is that:
1. he must be performing a lawful act,
2. with due care
3. and causes an injury by mere accident
 o by mere accident – beyond the sway of the will of the
person; something that you cannot foresee
US v. Tanedo
- He was hunting. He fired his gun at a wild chicken but when it
hit the wild chicken, the bullet recoiled, and it hit a person who
turns out to be his relative. He was charged for homicide, but
he was acquitted on the ground that he was performing a lawful
act (hunting); with due care (when he fired his gun, there was
no person in front of Tanedo); he caused an injury by mere
accident (by hitting the wild chicken, the bullet recoiled, hitting
a person without the intention of doing it)
Tayongtong case
- He was driving a car in the very cautious manner, not violating
any traffic rules and regulation; but somebody crossed the
street and he had no time to apply the break, so he ran over a
person. He was charged for homicide through reckless
imprudence. He was acquitted on the ground that he was
committing a lawful act with due care (not violating any traffic
rule and regulation and he was surprised when this person
immediately crossed the street).
Paragraph 5
Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
There are two offenders here: the person employing the irresistible
force and the person committing the crime.
US v. Caballeros
- A certain Bakuli was harvesting bananas in a banana plantation
and then he heard several shots, when he tried to run, he was
held by the leader of the armed group and he was immediately
brought to the group. The group then hit him with the butt of
their guns. They told him that he should assist them in burying
the victim. So, he assisted them. This certain Bakuli was
charged as an accessory in the crime of murder because he
assisted in burying the murdered American teachers. He was
acquitted on the ground that he acted under the compulsion of
an irresistible force.
- Intentional felonies: 3 requisites:
1. There must be freedom in committing the act or omission;
2. There must be intelligence in committing the act or
omission;
3. There must be intent.
- In the Bakuli case v. Caballeros, he acts without freedom; he
is like an instrument, a knife that is used in stabbing a person,
or a ladder used in climbing a house
- Both offenders will be charged but, the person committing the
crime can be exempted from criminal liability because he acted
without freedom; the person employing will be liable
(principal by inducement)
Paragraph 6
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury
- The person is employing threats or intimidation
- There is intimidation or threat that is employed by a person
o I’m going to kill you if you will not kill him
- The threat that causes the fear should either be equal or
greater than what is required to commit
- Example: A told B, “I’m going to kill you (a threat), if you will
not kill him”. So, B killed the person.
o The threat here, that causes the fear is equal than what
is required to commit; death as against death
- Example: A told B, “I’m going to kill you, if you will not twist
his arm”
o So, the threat is greater from what is required to do;
twisting of the arm against death
- To be exempt, the threat should either be equal or greater than
what is required to commit
 - If you reverse it, example: I’m going to twist your arm if you
will not kill him – if you kill the person, you cannot claim an
exempting circumstance because you don’t want your arm to
be twisted
- This exempting circumstance will not apply in the following
cases:
1. If there is a possibility of escaping from the person who
threatened you;
- Example: A told B “you better kill that person in that particular
place”; so there is a possibility of escaping rather than
following the order of the person
2. If there is a possibility of self-defense
- Here is a person who threatens the person with a pistol, a
person in possession of a rifle. There is a possibility of
defending himself.
3. It is merely speculative; the threat is merely speculative
- A told B, “you kill him otherwise something will happen to
you”
You must know when it is applicable and when it is not applicable.
People v. Vicentillo
Based on the principle that an act done by me against my will, is
not my act.
When you threatened, it is not your act so you will be exempted
Paragraph 7
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause
- A case where a person is not able to perform an act required by
law because he was prevented by some lawful or insuperable
force
- Example: here is a person who is joining a group who would
want to overthrow the government, since he is a Catholic, he
went to a priest and confessed. “Father, I am joining a group
that will overthrow the government, please forgive me”.
- Confession: a confession that is trying to overthrow he
government with a group
- Under the law (article 116 of the RPC), any person, specially a
Filipino citizen, who has knowledge of any conspiracy against
the government is required to report to the provincial
prosecutor or governor of the province where the crime
was/will be committed. Otherwise, he will be liable for
misprision of treason under article 116
- The priest was informed of a conspiracy that somebody will
overthrow the government. Under the law, he should report it.
Just inform the provincial prosecutor that there is a group that
will overthrow the government. If he does not report it, he will
be liable for Article 116. But since a priest is prhobited by his
profession not to disclose any information that he obtained
through confession.
- He is prevented from complying with the law because of a
lawful cause or insuperable cause.
- Vicentllo is a municipal president, a town mayor, and he
detained a person for 3 three days without bringing the
detained person to the nearest judicial authorities. Under the
law, when you detain a person, you are supposed to bring him
to the nearest judicial authorities within the period of 12 hours,
18, and 36 hours depending on the crime committed
- But in the case of Vicentillo, 3 days. He was holding a prisoner
without bringing him to the proper judicial authorities because
according to him when he was charged for the violation of
Article 125, I cannot bring the prisoner to the nearest place
with a judge because it took me three days to bring me to the
place because of the distance he has to take (a boat)
- He cannot comply with the 36 hours because of the distance, he
was acquitted for the reason that it was impossible for him to
bring the prisoner to the authorities within 36 hours
 - He was charged first for violation of article 125, but he was
acquitted
People v. Bandian
- A woman who gave birth, but she abandoned the child after
giving birth. The child died and she was charged for
infanticide. During the trial, she told the court that after
delivering, she was too weak and very dizzy that she cannot
bring with her the child after delivery because of weakness.
The Supreme Court said that she should be acquitted on the
ground that there was a valid reason why she abandoned the
child after delivering. She failed to comply with the law of not
abandoning by reason of insuperable cause.
- Bandian here is acquitted of the charge of infanticide
- Infanticide – a crime where you abandon a child where it is
less than 3 days old
Absolutory Causes
- The act of the person that is considered as a crime, but for
reason of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty that
is imposed
- Article 6 – spontaneous desistance; article 20 – those who are
exempt as accessories; article 11 – justifying circumstances;
and 12 – exempting circumstances
Question: what do you understand by absolutory causes?
Answer: absolutory causes is one where the act is considered as a
crime, but for reason of public policy and sentiment, there is no
penalty that is imposed.
- There is a crime that is committed:
o Article 6
o Article 20
- Kinds of absolutory causes:
o Instigation
 A public officer or a private detective induces
an innocent person to commit a crime and he
will prosecute the person
 The one instigating must be a public officer or a
private detective
 Example: a barangay captain saw a person
waiting for a ride, and he said
BC: “brad, have you tasted shabu?”
TOP: “no, I am a very good boy. I don’t take
this drug”
BC: “Just try it once, and you will find out the
moment you taste it that your life will be at a –
flatline, as if you are floating. You try it”
TOP: “no, I don’t want to taste it”
BC: “Just once and you will see the difference”
TOP: “Kap, just once ah.”
And he tasted it, and he arrested the person.
 Instigation – not liable; if the person
instigating is a public officer or a private
detective
 If not, then both will be liable
o Entrapment
 Ways and means are resorted to by a police
officer in order to arrest the person who is about
to commit a crime or is already committing a
crime
 Sometimes you always read it in the newspaper
where police officers entrap criminals
 Instead of applying for a search warrant, what
they did is to entrap a person
 Especially when a drug pusher and that
particular drug pusher is living in a house and
the police cannot just enter that house even if
there are a lot of drugs inside the house without
 applying for a search warrant; it will take some - They will use it as an evidence: the shabu and the money will
time to apply for a search warrant. So instead, be confiscated and will be placed in the log book
they will make an entrapment. - So, during trial, the person will be convicted because of these
 In entrapment, usually, they use the money of evidences
the police precinct in buying the drugs from an
alleged drug pusher who is living in a place
 Usually, the police receive an information from
their informer (informing the Chief of Police)
I: Chief, I know a person in that particular house
who is selling shabu
P: (will tell the informant that they will entrap
the person using the informer as a witness,
sometimes they use a police officer to act as a
drug addict/buyer)
 They will get the money from the police
precinct and they will place some chemicals on
the money. They jot down the serial number of
the money that they will use for entrapment.
Then, they will go to that place, and then the
police officer will act as a buyer together with
the informant. They will go to the place. The
informant will knock at the door of the house
and he is known to the drug pusher
 The drug pusher here, will try to examine the
buyer. He will look at the buyer if he really is a
drug addict. So sometimes, they use a policeman
who looks like an addict.
 You cannot bring in someone whose haircut is
the same as that from an army. Otherwise, the
drug pusher will not sell to this person
 The moment of the exchange of the shabu and
the money, the police will make a signal to his
fellow policemen who were just waiting from a
distance. The moment they make that signal,
they will raid the place.

Mitigating Circumstances: Art. 13
Question: what is the legal effect of the presence of mitigating
circumstances in the commission of the offense?
Answer: it depends as to what kind of mitigating is present: if it is an
ordinary mitigating, then the effect is the penalty imposed is in the
minimum period (reclusion temporal – maximum, medium,
minimum). If it is a privilege mitigating, then the penalty is lowered
by one or two degrees (reclusion temporal to prision mayor).
Question: why is a lawyer defending a criminal, when he knows that
he is a killer?
Answer: when you become a lawyer, you don’t merely defend an
innocent person or a person who did not commit a crime. But also,
those vicious criminals. To see to it that the penalty is properly
imposed by the judge, or at least you lower the penalty of your client.
That will be sufficient.
- This is the importance of a mitigating circumstance
If it is an ordinary mitigating, it can be offset by an aggravating
circumstance. (it can be lost); Privilege mitigating cannot be offset
- We are now distinguishing ordinary mitigating from privilege
mitigating: (2 distinctions)
1. An ordinary mitigating, the penalty imposed is in the
minimum period; whereas a privilege mitigating, the
penalty is lowered by one or two degrees
2. An ordinary mitigating can be offset by an aggravating
circumstance; whereas a privilege mitigating cannot be
offset
Paragraph 1
The first mitigating circumstance: those mentioned in the
preceding chapter (justifying and exempting), when all the
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are in attendance
- Then it is mitigating: if the justifying and exempting are
incomplete.
o Not totally correct
Example: self-defense
- When not all the elements of self-defense (justifying
circumstance) is present
Question: if not all of the elements of self-defense are present, when
will it be ordinary mitigating, when will be privilege mitigating, and
when will it be no mitigating?
Answer: In order that it be an ordinary mitigating, the requisites of an
unlawful aggression must be present, whereas the other two are absent.
Meaning, you are able to prove unlawful aggression, but the means
employed was not reasonable and there was sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
In order that it be a privilege mitigating, the requisites of an unlawful
aggression are present, but either 2 or 3 is absent. You were able to
prove unlawful aggression, but the means employed was not
reasonable; but there was no sufficient provocation (2 against 3)
The unlawful aggression must always be present (basic
requirement) in order that there can be ordinary or privilege mitigating.
Supposing 2 are present but unlawful aggression is absent, there is no
mitigating, no aggravating (because there is no unlawful aggression).
Without all the elements of self-defense, it can result in ordinary
mitigating, privilege mitigating, or no mitigating at all.
This is an example where unlawful aggression can create the three.
Defense of relatives: 3 requisites – if unlawful aggression is only
present but the two are absent, the same rule (with respect to self-
defense)
Defense of a stranger: 3 requisites (third is that he must not be
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive) – if the last is
absent: privilege mitigating, but if the unlawful aggression is the only
one present: ordinary mitigating
Damage to another: 3 requisites – the first requisite must be present
and either 2 or 3 is absent: privilege mitigating (majority is present, 1
and 2 or 3)
1. That the evil sought to be avoided exist,
2. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it,
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
Fulfillment of Office or Lawful exercise of a Right or Duty AND Any
Person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose: 2 requisites – if there are only 2 requisites, there is no
ordinary mitigating, just privilege mitigating (as long as the first
requisite is present)
People v. Juanes (fulfillment of duty)
- He fired his gun without checking who the person is. He was
charged with murder. And yet, he was acquitted with a
privilege mitigating of fulfillment of duty
- He was acting in the fulfillment of his duty but the killing was
not a natural consequence of his fulfillment of duty.
- Fulfillment of duty has 2 requisites:
1. That he acted in the fulfillment of duty/lawful exercise of a
right or office
2. The injury caused must be a natural consequence of the
fulfillment of duty
Exempting Circumstances – paragraph 4 (performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident): you will be charged with
reckless impudence, you will not be exempted from criminal liability,
but he will be charged for homicide through reckless imprudence. In
effect, it is mitigated (from intentional felony to culpable felony);
minor – if he acted with discernment
Paragraph 2
That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years. In the
case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 192 of P.D. 603
Minor – under 18 (too general; 15 and below is not included because
they are already exempted – acting without discernment)
Diversion Program – over 15, under 18; administered by the local
social development officer together with the barangay captain for
mediation, conciliation, family conferencing.
Usually if the crime committed by the minor does not exceed 6 years,
then the diversion program is without the participation of the court. If
it exceeded 6 years, the it will only be administered by the court
proceeding.
Intervention program - for minors and those over 15 but under 18 who
acted without discernment
The other mitigating is over 70 – it will be analogous (paragraph 10)
Paragraph 3
He had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
Lack of intention as that committed is applicable only if it is a crime
against person; this mitigating is only applicable if the victim died. If
other crimes, death is not a requirement.
Example: the husband slapped the wife, and the wife hit her head
against a hard object. The wife died. The husband is liable for
parricide with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
If the victim lives, the offender is not entitled because he will then be
liable for serious physical injuries.
Question: in crimes against person, how will you determine if the the money, and that you used the money to pay for the hospital bill of
person had no intention to commit a crime? your brother). Although not specifically mentioned in Art. 13
Answer: It can be determined by:
1. The weapon that you used (gun and piece of wood) Paragraph 4
2. The part of the body that was injured (stabbing the person in
That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
the less vital portions)
party immediately preceded the act.
3. The injury sustained by the person
4. The manner of inflicting the injury (boxing the person in the Here is a case where a person committed a crime because, before he
chest, but he was suffering from heart ailment) committed a crime, there was sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party (immediately after).
Question: When will this mitigating circumstance not applicable?
For instance, if the person who was treated physically by her master.
Answer: If you use brute force, or if the crime is committed in a
He keeps on hitting him, so he retaliated against the master (sufficient
treacherous manner
provocation on the part of the master) immediate after the act
People v. Yu
There must be some provocation/threat that was made by the victim
- He covered the mouth of a 6-year old and she died choking before the accused committed a crime.
- Yu: I had no intention of killing – but he used brute force
The law says that the sufficient provocation must be adequate to incite
Example: treacherous manner a person to commit a crime.
- Even if you use a piece of wood, if you use it in a treacherous We have a case where when the husband arrived home, a person
manner, you will not be exempt jumped out of the window. The wife, on bended knees, asked for
- If you hit him while his back was facing you (treacherous forgiveness. (sufficient provocation on the part of the wife that
manner) immediately preceded the act)
This mitigating circumstance is also applied in malversation where the OR sufficient threat
accused used the money in his possession (a public official), because
A told B, “if I see you, I will hit you with this piece of wood” – so he
his brother was brought to the hospital and he used the money for the
was attacked by the person.
hospital bills. He was able to immediately reimburse most of the
balance and this was not considered as mitigating. No intention to You are a victim of provocation or threat by the offended party
commit so grave a wrong
This is the mitigating that you can always invoke.
As a lawyer, you should be resourceful in convincing the court that
this mitigating circumstance applies to your client. Ordinarily, the
concept of the lack of intention only applies to crimes against persons.
This also applies to malversation (if you were able to return a part of
Paragraph 5 – Vindication
That the crime was committed in vindication of a grave offense
committed on the person committing a crime or the spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers
or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
The vindication is applicable to the person committing the crime and
to the relatives by affinity and to the spouse.
Relatives of consanguinity is not included: in-laws only. It is only
applicable to defense of relatives.
The death of the spouse survives the relationship.
Vindication – the terms “immediately preceding the act” is the wrong
translation of the Spanish term “proxima”
- Proxima: lapse of time is allowed (it should not be more than a
day) – around 1-5 hours (starts in the morning, vindication in
the afternoon)
- Unlike in the sufficient threat or provocation, immediate is
required
- Vindication depends on the social status of the victim or time
and place, age.
During a fiesta, an old man, around 70 years old, was asking the
person who was chopping the lechon to give him some roasted pig.
The old man was ridiculed, left the place, and returned with an ax. He
attacked the person.
If you invoke this, you better prove that you were insulted, or grave
offense is committed against the person. (subjective)
1. It is not limited to the person committing the crime, but
also to his relatives
2. Lapse of time is allowed, but not too long or more than 12
hours
3. Depends on the social status of the person or the victim
Paragraph 6
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation
When there are causes naturally producing in a person powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing
the exercise of his will power.
- The offender is compelled to commit a crime
- It must arise from a lawful sentiment, not unlawful event or
revenge
Requisites:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him
Example:
People v. Samonte
- A was at the wake of his deceased father. B attended the said
wake but created trouble by breaking a domino piece used by
the sympathizers playing domino, and by trying to break the
guitar of another mourner who refused to give it to him. A shot
B causing his death. A is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation because creating
trouble during the wake scandalizes the mourners and offends
the sensibilities of the grieving family. The trouble created by
B was both unlawful and sufficient to infuriate A.
Example:
- The debtor borrowed a considerable amount of money from the
creditor. When it was time to pay for the debt, the debtor would
always hide and run away from the debtor. The creditor,
because of the unjust act of the debtor, he killed the debtor.
 And the creditor was given the analogous mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation.
If you compare the latter example to the Samonte case, where there
was a specific ruling of the Court. In both cases, there was a previous
unjust act towards both victims. The debtor refuses to pay, and he tries
to run away from paying his debt. The Samonte case, he tried to create
trouble during the wake by destroying the domino pieces played by the
mourners and tried to destroy the string of the guitar. If you compare
these, there is passion/obfuscation.
Question: when is this mitigating circumstance is applicable?
1. If there is a presence of a previous unjust act or improper
conduct of a victim which made the accused commit a crime
- Must not be in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge
2. If the said act which produces the obfuscation was not far
removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time during which, the perpetrator might recover his
normal equanimity
It all boils down to the guidelines presented in the Samonte case.
Paragraph 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 of
the prosecution
2 mitigating circumstances present:
1. Voluntary Surrender
2. Confession of Guilty
Voluntary Surrender
- It must be spontaneous, without any condition
- There must be no warrant of arrest issued by the Court
- You must voluntarily surrender to 2 persons:
1. To a person in authority
2. Agent of the person in authority
Person in authority – the one directly vested with jurisdiction; they
have the power to execute laws (mayor, barangay captain, barangay
chairman)
Agent of the person in authority – is from a law-enforcement agency
(the police, the NBI, the AFP); those tasked to maintain peace and
order
These are the persons who you could surrender to, but, when you
surrender yourself; there should be no warrant of arrest.
If the police have the warrant of arrest, then you surrender, then you
can no longer invoke voluntary surrender.
Requisites of Voluntary Surrender:
1. That the offender had not been actually arrested;
2. The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
or to an agent of a person in authority;
3. The surrender was voluntary
There are cases that are ruled by the SC:
1. If a person brought the victim to the hospital and it is at the
hospital where he is captured by the police; it is considered
voluntary surrender
- If you bring your victim to the hospital – that is similar to
voluntary surrender;
When you surrender, you must surrender your person and not the
weapon that you used alone. You surrender it both simultaneously.
Question: at what point in time from the moment that you committed a
crime, are you allowed to surrender?
The law does not require that after the commission of a crime, you
must surrender instantly. Sometimes, the offender tries to protect
himself from the events that may be done against him by the family of
the victim. He waits for an opportune time before surrendering. He
doesn’t immediately surrender. He waits for an opportune time to
secure his person.
Supposing that the case is already filed in Court (homicide), and the
offender, went to the Court where the case is pending and he posted
bail, although the warrants has already been issued, but not yet
served, it is still considered as voluntary surrender. As long as the
warrant of arrest is not served yet, then you can still go to Court and
post bail – still considered as voluntary surrender.
If a person surrenders because he was already surrounded by the
police, that is no longer voluntary surrender. Perhaps, initially, he had
no intention of surrendering but when he saw that he is being
surrounded by the police, he just gave up. (you are about to be arrested
by the police)
Voluntary confession of guilt – usually, this happens in the
arraignment of the case where the Court will ask if you plead guilty or
not guilty; if you plead guilty, then it is a mitigating circumstance
The law requires that you have to confess your guilt before the Court
where your case is pending AND you have to plead guilty to the
offense charged
Question: You were charged of murder, during the arraignment, the
lawyer of the accused said that this client would want to plead guilty to
homicide, not murder. If the aggrieved party agrees to the plead of a
lesser offense of homicide, and the prosecutor also agrees, and the
accused pleaded guilty, will he be entitled to a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense?
Answer: NO because the law requires that it must be to the offense
charged.
To be entitled, therefore, you must plead guilty to murder and not
homicide, EXCEPT: if the case is amended. If the prosecutor amended
the case from murder to homicide. In this case, he will be entitled
because that is the offense charged, not to the lesser offense by the
agreement of the parties.
Requisites:
1. The plea of guilty must be made in open court where the
case is pending;
2. It must be spontaneous;
3. It must be made before the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution.
If the prosecution started presenting evidence, you can no longer be
entitled to a plead of guilty. The law requires that it must before the
presentation of the evidence by the prosecution.
You must know the requirements to a plead of guilty as a
mitigating circumstance.
Paragraph 8
That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communication with his fellow human beings.
- refers to physical defects: not all physical defects will entitle
you to a mitigating circumstance
- the physical defects must restrict his means of action,
communication of defense (requirement in claiming for
physical defect)
Example:
- the accused is armless, naturally, it will restrict his means to
self-defense.
Paragraph 9
Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the - If your client is from ages 61-70, but with failing eyesight, you
willpower of the offender without however depriving him of can always tell he court that this is analogous to over 70.
consciousness of his acts - If you are over 60 without a failing eyesight, you are not
entitled to a mitigating.
Question: when can you invoke illness as a mitigating?
- The Court said that mitigating is only for those over 70.
Answer: the illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the
Example:
accused, without depriving him of his consciousness of his acts.
- With respect to passion or obfuscation, the outrage/feeling of a
Because if the illness would deprive him of his consciousness of his
creditor where the debtor does not want to pay the debt
acts, then it will be insanity already. (no longer mitigating but
incurred and in fact, runs away from the creditor (analogous to
exempting)
passion or obfuscation)
Question: when can you invoke illness as a mitigating? - BWS: should undergo battering cycle, at least twice. Supposing
it happened only once. You can invoke a battered wife as
Answer: the illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the analogous to such illness as diminishing her means of action
offender without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. Not (manifestation only, does not merit full exemption from
all illness will not entitle you to a mitigating circumstance of illness. criminal liability)
- Illness of the mind, nerve, body - If you return the money that you have malverse or stolen, and
- All these illnesses must diminish the exercise of his willpower you return it to the owner, that is analogous to voluntary
surrender.
This designed by lawyers and the Court was convinced that it is
Paragraph 10 somehow similar.
Any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those - The accused testified for the prosecution, analogous to
abovementioned confession of guilt
Where the lawyer must be very resourceful in convincing the Court
that your client is entitled to a mitigating circumstance which is
analogous/similar from paragraphs 1-9
If they are claiming that your client is entitled to a mitigating that is
analogous, then, you have to prove/tell the Court what is it analogous
to?
Example:
- The offended party was only over 60, but he has a failing
eyesight. The Court convicted him for the crime committed by
the mitigating circumstance analogous to over 70.

Aggravating Circumstances: Art. 14
Question: what is the legal effect of the presence of an aggravating
circumstance in the commission of an offense?
Answer: the penalty is increased without exceeding the maximum
penalty provided for by law.
Question: can there be an aggravating circumstance, but it does not
have the effect of increasing the penalty?
Answer: Yes. If it is part of defining a crime or it is inherent in the
crime. Then, it will not be part of the effect of increasing thee penalty.
Even if the aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information,
but it is proved during the trial, it can still be considered by the Court.
– ALREADY AMENDED
That all aggravating circumstances, that in order that it will be
considered against the accused, they must be alleged in the
information.
- You must include/mention it in the charge
- Otherwise, even if you prove it during trial, it will not be
considered against the accused
- This is the duty of the prosecutor proved during trial; the
moment that you failed to establish it in the charge, and it was
proven in the trial, then the court will not consider it
Different kind of AC:
1. Generic Aggravating – usually applicable to almost all crimes
2. Specific Aggravating – applicable only to a certain crime
(treachery – only to crimes against person; ignominy – only to
crimes against chastity)
3. Qualifying Aggravating – it changes the nature of the offense if
it is present in the commission of a crime (from homicide to
murder qualified by treachery; evident premeditation); present
in Article 248
4. Inherent Aggravating – it is part of defining the crime,
therefore, it is no longer considered; it does not increase the
penalty (fire is inherent in arson; sex is inherent in rape)
Two things to remember:
1. When is it applicable?
2. When is it not applicable although it is present?
Paragraph 1
That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
- This is only applicable if the offender is a public officer
- Takes advantage of his public position by – using his
influence, prestige, or ascendance of his office in the
commission of a crime
The only question you need to ask is: did the accused take advantage
of his position in order to commit the crime?
- If the answer is in the affirmative, then, it takes advantage
These aggravating circumstances, the moment they are present, the
penalty is imposed in the maximum period irrespective of the
mitigating circumstance.
RA 7659 – if the offender takes advantage of his position in the
commission of the offense, the penalty will be imposed in the
maximum period regardless of the existence of a mitigating
circumstances
There are aggravating circumstances where there are mitigating
circumstances that can be offset by the latter. Or the penalty is lowered
by one degree, if you prove that one mitigating, and there is no
aggravating, then it is lowered by one degree.
If the crime is committed by a public officer taking advantage of its
position, the penalty is in the maximum period regardless of the
existence of a mitigating.
Question: when is this aggravating circumstance not applicable?
Answer: if it is inherent in the commission of the offense
- When will taking advantage of his public office be inherent?
o Malversation (art. 217)
o Falsification of public document (art. 171)
o Accessories (art. 19,[3])
o Crimes committed by public officers (Art. 204-245)
- Know when it is not applicable
Paragraph 2
That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insults to the
public authorities
Example:
- Mayor Isko is inspecting the widening of the street in
Divisoria. While inspecting, he saw 2 people quarreling, when
Mayor Isko intervened, they continued on fighting (aggravated
by in contempt/insult to public authority)
Requisites: aggravating outside the office
1. That both offenders knew of the presence of a public
official (public official must not be the victim; otherwise,
direct assault)
2. The public official is performing outside of his office
- When Isko asked the offenders to stop fighting, and one boxed
Isko
This particular case will not be aggravated by insult or in contempt.
If you kick him/boxing him – direct assault
Ask yourself: Whether the offender knows the public officer; the latter
must not be the victim;
Paragraph 3
That the act committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that
it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party
4 Aggravating Circumstances:
o Rank – the crime must be committed with insult or
in disrespect due to the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex; or that it be committed in the
dwelling
o Age
o Sex
o Dwelling – subject to qualification: provided that he
has not given sufficient provocation
Question: when will these Aggravating Circumstance be considered?
Answer: usually, on account of his age, the offender here is younger
than the victim.
- A 70-year old attacked a 20-year old person
- Or a 20-year old man getting attacked by a 6-year old small
boy
On account of his rank:
- A soldier attacked a general
On account of his sex:
- Applicable only if the victim is a woman
- A man forcibly dragged a woman from his house
Question: does this mean that just because the offended party is older - Example: the offended is outside of the house but it’s victim is
than the offender, or that the offended party has a higher rank than the inside the house. He fired his gun at the person killing the
offender, or that the offended party is a woman, it is already owner of the house
aggravated by on account of his rank, age, or sex. o The offender here is outside of the house and yetr it was
aggravated by dwelling because the victim was inside
Answer: no. it is not automatic that just because a victim is older, of
the dwelling.
higher rank, or a woman, it is not automatically aggravated. There
o It is not a requirement for the offender to enter the
must be a specific evidence that can be used that there is intention to
dwelling
disregard the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank,
age or sex. Question: when will dwelling be not considered even if the crime
committed is inside the dwelling?
There must be evidence to show deliberate disregard for respect.
Answer:
Example:
1. If both the offender and the victim are residing in the same
- Here is a person who was informed that one of his relatives
dwelling
was killed by his neighbor. He went to the house of the
2. Except in adultery: where it will be aggravated by dwelling
neighbor. Upon arriving, he saw 4 men and 1 woman. Instead
although the wife is residing with the husband; it will not be
of attacking the 4 men, he attacked the woman
aggravated if the boyfriend also lives in the house.
- Aggravated on the account of her sex: she was specifically
- Boarding house is also considered a dwelling
chosen to be the victim.
If the offended party is not residing in the same dwelling, it is not
In these cases, there must be specific evidence of the intention to
applicable. If the owner brings provocation.
disregard the respect due to the offended party on account of his rank,
age, or sex. It will no apply if it is inherent:
Sex is inherent in rape: therefore, it is not considered. 1. Trespass to dwelling
2. Robbery with forced upon things
Dwelling: here is the owner of the dwelling, he is looking at a window
and he saw a person passing along the street and he threw a flower pot
at the person. – sufficient provocation
Know when a dwelling is an aggravating circumstance and when it
Requirement with respect to dwelling: is not aggravating.
- That he has not given sufficient provocation
Dwelling – does not require that the offender enters the dwelling; he Paragraph 4
can be outside of the dwelling and yet it can be aggravated by dwelling
That the act committed with (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness
In order that abuse of confidence may be considered as an aggravating That the crime be committed in the place of the Chief Executive,
circumstance, it must facilitate the commission of the offense. or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated to religious
- Without the abuse of confidence, it couldn’t have facilitated the
worship
commission of the offense
4 aggravating circumstance:
People v. Marasigan
1. Palace of the Chief Executive
- Jealous boyfriend decided to kill his girlfriend. So, the jealous
2. In his presence
boyfriend went to the house of the girlfriend and invited her to
3. Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
go outside the house, to go somewhere else. The girlfriend not
duties
knowing what the intention of her boyfriend is, immediately
4. A place dedicated to religious worship
went with the boyfriend. The moment they boarded the car, she
was killed by the boyfriend. The Malacanan Palace together with the place dedicated to religious
- This is aggravated by the abuse of confidence: were it not for worship: it is not required/sufficient that in these two places, there
the confidence that was displayed by the girlfriend on his must be an ongoing activity.
boyfriend, he wouldn’t have committed a crime (she could
In order that Malacanan Palace be considered as an aggravating
have said no to the invitation to go with the boyfriend)
circumstance, the offender, when he entered Malacanan Palace, must
- The Marasigan case is an example of abuse of confidence as an
have the intention of committing a crime.
aggravating circumstance.
- He entered Malacanan to assassinate any official there
Obvious ungratefulness
While in the presence of the President – even if he is not performing
- Illustrated in a case where you allow a person to sleep in your
his duties, (swimming/sleeping), because you will endanger the
house. Then while you were sleeping, the other person is
security of the President if you cause trouble near his place.
getting your physical property and leaves the house
- This is aggravated by obvious ungratefulness. It is not required that he is performing his duties.
- This is different from inviting classmates to party in your house
and the pther person gets personal things: Ordinary theft Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties –
inside the City Hall, a lot of people wanted to meet mayor Isko. While
Abuse of confidence is inherent in other crimes: Isko was signing a document, 2 people quarreled. Then that will be
aggravated by a place where public authorities are engaged in the
1. Qualified theft
discharge of their duties.
2. Qualified seduction
3. Estafa If Isko is out of the picture and 2 people already quarreled, it will not
be aggravated because the person is not performing his duties.

Paragraph 5
In a place dedicated to a religious worship – the law doesn’t require
that there is a gathering, it is sufficient that a person entered the church
pretending to commit a crime.
- If the person was praying and he saw a jewelry will it be
aggravated? NO. he went there to pray.
- There must be intention to commit a crime when you enter the
place of worship.