CIRCUMSTANCES (Part 2)

Article 13. MITIGATING

*Those circumstances which reduce the penalty of a crime.
* Its effect, reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the crime
Kinds:
Privileged
Ordinary
Offset by any aggravating
Cannot be offset
Can be offset by a generic aggravating
Effect on penalty
Has the effect of imposing the penalty by 1 or 2 degrees lower than that provided by law
If not offset, has the effect of imposing the penalty in the minimum period
Kinds
Minority, Incomplete self-defense, two or more mitigating without any aggravating (has the effect of lowering the penalty by one degree) Art. 64, 68, 69
Those circumstances enumerated in the par. 1 – 10 of Art. 13

I. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances

A. Justifying

1. Self-defense/relatives/stranger
**Unlawful aggression must be present always. Other 2 elements not necessary. If 2 requisites are present-considered a privileged mitigating circumstance.                                                                                               

2. 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.

3. Performance of Duty (par 5)

B. Exempting

            1. Minority over 9 and under 15
**if minor acted with discernment, considered privilege mitigating

            2. Causing injury by mere accident
**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.

            3. Uncontrollable fear
**only one requisite present, considered mitigating

II. Under 18 or Over 70 years old

**Age of accused is determined by his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial.
Various Ages & their Legal Effects:                                                                                                                                                   
a. under 9 – exceptive circumstance
b. over 9 below 15 – exceptive, 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 of death sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted.

III. Offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed                     (Praeter Intentionem)

**Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and evident disproportion bet means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
Factors that can be considered are:                          
1. Weapon used                                                            
2. Injury inflicted                                                                         
3. Part of the body injured                                          
4. Mindset of offender at the time of commission of the crime              
       
 IV. Sufficient provocation of threat on the part of the offended partly 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                                                    
Sufficient – adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity.                              
Sufficiency depends on:                                                       
1. The act constituting the provocation                                      
2. The social standing of the person provoked                           
3. Time and place provocation took place

b. It must originate from the offended party                                    
c. Provocation must be immediate to the act

V. Immediate Vindication of Grave Offense
Requisites:                                                                                 
1. There’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity with in the same degrees                                                   
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense
**”Immediate” allows for a lapse of time, as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental agony brought about by the offense to him. (proximate time, not just immediately after)

Distinction:
P: Made directly only to the person committing the felony                                                                                               V: Grave offense may be also against the offender’s relatives mentioned by law                                                  P: Cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense                                                    V: Offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives
P: Necessary that provocation or threat immediately preceded the act. No time interval                                                                         V: May be proximate. Time interval allowed.

VI. Passion or Obfuscation
Requisites:                                                                                  
1. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce passion or obfuscation               
2. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge                                                  
3. The act must come from lawful sentiments

Act which gave rise to passion and obfuscation:                                                                     
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust                                                                        
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind                                                                        
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act                                                                                               
4. The victim must be the one who caused passion and obfuscation

VII. Surrender and Confession of guilt
Voluntary Surrender/ Requisites:                                   
1. Offender not actually arrested                          
2. Offender surrendered to person in authority                                                                             
3. Surrender was voluntary

Voluntary Plea of guilt/ Requisites:                         
1. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt           
2. Confession was made in open court, before the competent court that is to try the case         
3. Confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution

VIII. Physical Defect of Offender
Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of the element of voluntariness.

**the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect, restricting his means of action, defense or communication with others.
**must be related to the offense committed

IX. Illness of the offender
Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent
Requisites:                                                                       
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will power.                                 
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

X. Similar and Analogous Circumstances
Examples:                                                                   
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70 yo    
2. Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation                                                                                    4. Voluntary restitution of property similar to voluntary surrender                                                                                 5. Extreme proverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more