basic knowledge about exempting circumstance

1. EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
(ARTICLE 12 OF THE RPC)
BY: CHELDY S. ELUMBA-PABLEO,MPA,LLB

2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
• (Non-imputability)—are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.

3. BASIS
• The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of:
a. Intelligence
b. freedom of action
c. Intent
d. Absence of the part of the accused negligence

4. EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. An imbecile or insane person (unless acted during lucid interval)
2. Under 9 years of age
3. Over 9 years under 15 (unless acted with discernment)—NEW LAW: 15
years under is exempt
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5. EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force.
6. Any person who acts under 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 or insuperable cause.

6. EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but NO
CRIMINAL liability arises—complete absence of any of the
conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act,
no criminal liability arise.( Guevara)
• Any circumstances must be proved by the defendant to the
satisfaction of the court.

7. l. IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON
• IMBECILE—are exempt in all cases from criminal
liability. One who while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between 2-7
years of age.
• INSANE—are not so exempt if it can be shown that he
acted during lucid interval.

8. BURDEN OF PROOF
• The court has no power to permit the insane person to leave the asylum without
first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released
without danger. (Chin Ah Foo vs Conception)
• PRESUMPTION is always in favour of sanity. (PP vs Bascos) and the
burden of proof of insanity is on the defense (PP vs Aquino)
• TO PROVE SANITY therefore, circumstantial evidence if clear and
convincing will suffice (PP vs Bonoan)

9. WHEN THE DEFENSE ARE THE
FOLLOWING:
1. Dementia
2. Kleptomania must be proved otherwise it will constitute a
3. Epilepsy mitigating circumstance
4. Feeblemindedness—not exempt because the offender can distinguish what is right and
wrong ((PP vs Formigones)
5. Paedophilia—not insanity
6. Amnesia—no defense to criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof
7. Somnambulism or sleepwalking—the act is not voluntary (no intent while doing the act)

10. ll. PERSON UNDER 9 YEARS OLD
(now 15)
• Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to 15 years of age.
• R.A 9344—”Juvenile Justice and Welfare act of 2006”, Sec. 6 –
at the time of commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. However, the child is subject to an
intervention program (DSWD).

11. lll. PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15
•If such child acted with discernment—
shall be subjected to appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.

12. ACTED WITH DISCERNENT
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE:
• A minor under 18 years old but above 15 years old
–must have acted with discernment to incur
criminal liability (wilfully, criminally and
feloniously).

13. INTERVENTION PROGRAM
(Article 80)
•Child taken in custody, the authority which will
have an initial contact with the child has the
duty to be immediately released to the custody of
his parents or guardian or in the absence of
thereof, the child’s nearest relative.

14. INTERVENTION PROGRAM
(Article 80)
• WITH DISCERNMENT: (found guilty)—below 18 years
old –the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application. PROVIDED
however, that the suspension of the sentence shall be
applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years old or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his guilt. (RA
9244)

15. IV. IN PERFORMANCE OF LAWFUL ACT
ELEMENTS:
1. A person is performing a lawful act.
2. With due care
3. Causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it

16. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
• Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit wrong
done. (refers to purely accidental case)--person
performing a lawful act must do so with DUE CARE,
WITHOUT FAULT OR NEGLIGENT.

17. V. UNDER THE COMPULSION OF
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
• ELEMENTS:
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person

18. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
• Irresistible force can never consist of an impulse, passion or
obfuscation. –it must consist of an extraneous force coming from
a third person.
• A person who acts under compulsion of an irresistible force like
one who acts under impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
injury –exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom.

19. NATURE OF FORCE REQUIRED
• Actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without
will but against his will.
• The compulsion must be of such character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. (PP vs Loreno citing PP nvs Villianueva)

20. VI. ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR
GREATER INJURY
• Presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but
the compulsion is by means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence.
ELEMENTS: (PP vs Petenia)
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

21. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
• A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such character
as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense.
• SPECULATIVE, FANCIFUL AND REMOTE FEAR IS NOT
UNCONTROLLABLE--mere fear to disobey or refuse to carry out orders in
the absence of proof of actual physical or moral compulsion to act, is not
sufficient to exempt the accused from criminal liability (PP vs Fernando)
• NOTE: There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from because
of the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act.

22. DISTINCTION
• IRRESISTIBLE FORCE—(par.5) the offender uses violence or
physical force to compel another person to commit a crime.
• UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR—(par.6) the offender employs
intimidation or threat in compelling another to commit a crime.
(complete absence of freedom)
“Actus me invito factus non est meus actus”—an act done by
me against my will is not my act.”

23. VII. PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT
REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
• ELEMENTS:
1. An act is required by law to be done;
2. A person fails to perform such act;
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful
or insuperable cause.

24. PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED
BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR
INSUPERABLE CAUSE
• PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL CAUSE—privilege communication
that of a priest, doctor, lawyer—one is not compelled to reveal any
information which came to know by reason of the confession made to him
in his professional capacity. (Vide, Sec. 24[d], Rule 130. Rules of Court)
• PREVENTED BY SOME INSUPERABLE CAUSE—a person who acts
without malice(without intelligence, freedom of action or fault) is not
criminally liable or is exempt from punishment.

25. DISTINCTION
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE—there is neither a crime nor a
criminal. No civil liability (except par 4)—causing damage to another.
• EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE—there is a crime but no criminal
liability. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally liable. There
is civil liability except (pars. 4 and 7)—causing an injury by mere accident;
failing to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful
or insuperable cause

26. ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
•Are those where the act committed is a crime
but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed

27. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• ART. 6—Spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the
commission of a felony before he could perform all acts of execution.
(attempted felony)
• ART. 20—Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability (family,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees) except: (par.1 of Art. 9)—By
profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the
crime.

28. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• ART. 124—(last par.)—the commission of a crime, or violent
insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal
grounds for the detention of any person.
• ART. 247.—(pars.1 and 2)—death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. Eg. Husband surprise the
spouse and kills the paramour or inflict injury-”distiero”

29. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• ART. 280—(par. 3)—trespass to dwelling. For purposes of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third (3rd)
person or any person who enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public
houses–while the door is open (humanitarian purposes)
• ARTR. 332—Person exempt from criminal liability (family, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees)

30. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• ART. 344– In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and (RAPE-crime against chastity; if
married in good faith-”no criminal liability” even on trial
or after serving penalty)—extinguish criminal liability

31. BASIS OF EXEMPTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
• ENTRAPMENT—not an absolutory cause (have
in mind to commit a crime)
• INSTIGATION is an absolutory cause. (accused
is forced to do the crime)

32. THANK YOU FOR READING
CHELDHAYE