I. Justifying Cicumstances (Art.

11) the following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur:

Requisites of self-defense: (1) Unlawful aggression ; (2) Reasonable necessity of the

means employed to prevent or repel it ; (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself

First. Unlawful aggression. There must be unlawful aggression on the part of the person
injured or killed by the accused and it is an indispensable requisite. It is an equivalent to
assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind. There must be an
actual physical force or actual use of weapon; (People vs. Crisostomo); There is an
unlawful aggression when the peril to limb of person’s life or right is either actual or
imminent; There must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to
inflict real injury; Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack, or imminent danger, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. It cannot
consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture (People vs. Lahica); Threat
must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury
(U.S. vs. Guysayco); and There must be a real danger to life or personal safety. (People vs.
Cagalingan)

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The person
attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be wounded or killed, and while the danger
to his person or life subsists, he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel such danger by
wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable him completely so that he may
continue the assault. (U.S. vs. Molina)

Doctrine of rational equivalence. Reasonable necessity of the means employed does

not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the
law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal
factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and
the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and the
proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon imminent
danger of such injury. (People vs. Encomienda)

Human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct
of self-preservation.

The test of reasonableness of the means used. Whether the means employed is
reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor,
his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the assault.

Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the
aggressor is not required, because the person assaulted does not have sufficient
tranquility of mind to think to calculate and chose which weapon to use.
When a lawless person attacks on the streets or commit a crime, he should assume the risk
of losing his life from the act of self-defense; otherwise, the law-abiding citizens will be at
the mercy of the lawless elements. Thus, this requisite is liberally in favor of law-abiding
citizens.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. this
requisite is exclusive to self-defense. When the person defending himself sufficiently
provoked the aggressor, then the former should also be blamed for causing the aggression.
Hence, to be entitled of justifying circumstance of self-defense, the one defending himself
must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or
provoking the assailant.

Cases in which third requisite is considered present:

1. When no provocation at all from defendant
2. When provocation was not sufficient
3. When provocation was sufficient but it was not given by the defendant
4. When a provocation was given by defendant, it was not proximate and immediate to the
act of aggression

Self-defense; defined. It is a rule that where the accused invokes self-defense, it is

incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
defense of himself and must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the prosecution. (People vs. Sazon)

Self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing

evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking
it. (People vs. Mercado)

For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be assaulted or that we be attacked,
or at least threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner.

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body but also of his rights
which are protected by laws, such as right to property, right to honor.

Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful. It is impossible for the State in all
cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens and offer protection to person unjustly
attacked. Self-defense is a justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save
his person or rights from impending danger.

(1) When A was going to slap the face of B, latter repelled it by clubbing him and inflicted
upon him physical injuries. The act of slapping another constituted the use of force
which is an unlawful aggression. Since the face represents a person and his dignity,
slapping it is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful
disregard, or rather, a defiance of an individual’s personality. It may, therefore, be
 frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person’s dignity, rights, and safety.
(People vs. Sabio)

(2) Due to misunderstanding, A hit B with a bolo, which assault made B dizzy and caused
him to fall to the ground in a sitting posture. As B feared that A would continue to
assault him, he took hold of his pocket knife and stabbed A on the leg resulting to
serious physical injuries.

(3) When one aims a revolver at another with the intention of shooting him. Instead of
running away, accused fought back and killed the aggressor as a self-defense. (The rule
is to stand ground when in the right. The reason for the rule is that if one flees from an
aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor.)

(4) Person A inflicted serious physical injuries against Person B who is a hold upper
pointing a knife at him

(5) A stabbed B with a knife. B, upon lying on the ground saw a gun and shoot A resulted
to his death.

Battered woman syndrome as a defense. This syndrome refers to a scientifically defined

pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts
to be suffering from this syndrome do not incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense. (Sec. 26 of
RA 9262)

A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a mean in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives
or woman in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be
classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least
twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs
a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.

Phases of cycle of violence. (1) tension building phase where minor battering occurs. It
could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman
usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior, or by simply
staying out of his way. (2) acute battering incident characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as
unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer
may put an end to the violence. (3) the tranquil (non-violent) phase. During this period, the
couple experience profound relief. The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and tries to make up for it,
begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat her again. On the other hand, the
battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never happen again; that
her partner will change for the better; and that this “good, gentle and caring man” is the real
person whom she loves. (People vs. Genosa)
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
(as long as blood related), provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in
the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.

Requisites of defense of relatives: (1) Unlawful aggression ; (2) Reasonable necessity of

the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) in case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

Basic of justification. The justification of defense of relatives by reason of which the

defender is not criminally liable, is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but
also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to
the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.

(1) The father hit the rapist several times with a solid object resulting to serious physical
injuries while the former caught the latter raping his daughter.
(2) Person A shot C with a gun when he saw him that latter was about to stab his brother B
with a knife.
(3) During nighttime, Person A (a father), killed the armed robbers inside his house for he
feared that they would hurt his family.
(4) Person A (husband) punched B (aggressor) several times resulting to serious physical
injuries) when former saw that latter hitting his wife.
(5) Wife tried to stop the aggressors when she saw them that his husband was being
maltreated by them (because his husband scammed them) and she was pushed on a
corner. Wife had no choice but to fire a gun and killed one of the aggressors.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Requisites of defense of a stranger: (1) Unlawful aggression ; (2) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) person defending not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive

Basis of defense of stranger. What one may do in his defense, another may do for him.
Persons acting in defense of others are in the same condition and upon the same plane as
those who act in defense of themselves. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see
his companion without attempting to save his life. (U.S. vs. Aviado)
 The third requisite emphasized that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested
or generous motive, when it puts down “revenge, resentment, or other evil motive” as
illegitimate.

(1) Person A (who is a man) took advantage of person B (an insane woman), touching her
private parts and her breasts on a vacant lot and purposely raping her. Stranger C who
happened to saw the incident, ran towards A and punched him several times resulting to
serious physical injuries.
(2) Person A shot the “akyat bahay gang wearing masks” as he saw them forcefully
entering his neighbor’s house.
(3) Person A and person B are husband and wife. Person C, caught A in the act of
maltreating and harassing B. Because of his concern, C tried to restrain the husband by
pushing him away from the wife. However, the husband bumped his head on a wall
resulting to his death.
(4) Person C saw and heard person A and person B arguing and exchanging humiliating
words against each other. C did not meddle in their squabble not until B pulled out a
pistol from his pocket and cocking it, pointing towards A. C immediately approached
and restrained B and tried to get the pistol. However, while they were struggling, C
inadvertently pulled the trigger and hit B on the leg resulting to serious injuries.
(5) Person A, who is driving his car, saw a riding in tandem (in a motorcycle) grabbed the
bag of a person walking on the sidewalk. He shouted at the robbers to stop but they
kept on fleeing away. Person A, leaving him with no option, hit the pedal to chase
them. A recklessly hit them and crashed their motorcycle.

4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another.
Requisites of avoidance of greater evil or injury: (1) That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists; (2) That 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.

The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future, par. 4 is not applicable

The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater
importance than that of another.

The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.

When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance
of avoidance of greater evil or injury.

There is civil liability under this paragraph to be borne by the persons benefitted

Examples:
 (1) A person was driving his car on a narrow road with due diligence and care when
suddenly he saw a 6x6 truck in front of his car. If we would swerve to the left, he
would fall into a precipice, or if he would server it to the right, he would kill a
passerby. He was forced to choose between losing his life I the precipice or sacrificing
the life of an innocent bystander. He chose the latter, swerved his car to the right and
killed the bystander.
(2) Killing of a fetus to save the life of the mother may be held inexcusable.
(3) Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to prevent its spread to
adjacent houses of strong materials, the surrounding nipa houses are pulled down.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office.
Requisites: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office; (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or lawful exercise of such right
or office (People vs. Oanis)

Examples:
(1) A prisoner escaped from jail where he was serving sentence. Afterwards, the policeman
saw the prisoner and demanded to surrender. The fugitive did not cooperate and
attacked the policeman with a knife. The policeman dodged it, and in return, fired his
gun but he did not hit the prisoner. The prisoner flees away while holding his weapon.
Policeman chased him and fired again, this time hitting and killing him.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for same lawful
purpose.
Requisites: (1) that an order has been issued by superior; (2) that such order must be
some lawful purpose; (3) that the means sed by the subordinate to carry out said order
is lawful.

Both the person who gives the order and the person who execute it, must be acting within
the limitation prescribed by law. (People vs. Wilson)

The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not
aware of the illegality of the order.

Examples:
(1) Executioner who will perform death penalty to convicted person of capital punishment.
II. Exempting Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. – the following are
exempt from criminal liability.

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines
as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons thus afflicted which he shall not be permitted to
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court;

2. A person under nine years of age (now modified by Sec. 6 of RA 9344 – minimum
age of responsibility is now fifteen (15) years or under;

3. A 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 Art. 80 of RPC;

When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in

conformity with the provisions of this. And the preceding paragraph, shall commit
him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with this
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some
institution or person mentioned in said Article 80.
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.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
6. Any person who acts under the 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.

In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability

arises. Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting circumstances commits
a crime, although by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free
will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises. It is based on the complete
absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.

1 st requisite: Imbecility distinguished from insanity.

Imbecile person is exempt in all cases from criminal liability, who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years old.
describes imbecile is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom
of the will at the time of committing the crime. (Art. 12)
Insane person is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid interval
by which he acted with intelligence . To constitute insanity, there must be a complete
deprivation of intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will
because there is a complete absence of the power to discern. Thus, mere abnormality of
mental faculties is not enough especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his
acts but it could be a mitigating circumstance.

Procedure when the imbecile or insane person committed a felony . The court shall order
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted, which
he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of court.

Burden of proof to show insanity. The defense must prove that the accused was insane at
the time of the commission of the crime because the presumption always in favor of sanity
which describes as being the normal condition human brain.

Evidence to overthrow presumption of sanity . The total lack of motive on the part of the
accuse to kill bears out the assumption that the former was insane. In order to ascertain a
person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the
condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that crime. Mind can
be known only by outward acts. Thereby, the court reads the thoughts, motives, and
emotions of a person to determine whether the act of the accused conform to the practice of
people of sound mind. To prove insanity, circumstantial evidence that is clear and
convincing will suffice.

When a sane person becomes insane at the time of trial . When a person becomes insane
at the time of trial, he is still criminally liable. The trial, however, will be suspended until
the mental capacity of the accused be restored to afford hum a fair trial.

Examples of insane person exempted.

(1) A person suffering from a psychosis, a type of dementia precox, homicidal attack is
common because of the delusions that he is being interfered sexually or that his
property is being taken. During the period of excitement, such person has no control of
his acts. (People vs. Bonoan) The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental
defect/disease, producing an “irresistible impulse” which prevented himself from doing
the act.
(2) Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia preacox is a chronic mental disorder
characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality and often
accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
(3) Kleptomania. Must be investigated by competent alienist or psychiatrist to determine
whether the impulse to steal is irresistible impulse or not.
(4) Epilepsy. A chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at intervals,
attended by convulsive motions of muscle and loss of consciousness. It must be proved
that the influence of an epileptic fit when he committed the offense.
(5) Sleepwalking. Committing a crime while in a dream.
(6) Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria because such illness affects
the nervous system and causes among others such complication as acute melancholia
and insanity at times.

Not exempted.
(1) Feeblemindedness. It is an impairment of intellectual ability but still can distinguish
right from wrong.
(2) Crazy is not synonymous with insane. Unusual behaviors such as smiling to oneself and
calling a chicken late at night because not every aberration of the mind or mental
deficiency constitutes insanity.
(3) Pedophilia which describes of a person who has recurrent and uncontrollable sexual and
physical fantasies with children is not exempted.
(4) Amnesia is not a defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof
that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong.
Failure to remember the crime is not a sufficient proof.

2 nd requisite: A person under nine years of age. Age of absolute responsibility raised to
15 years of age by virtue of RA No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006. Minority is based on the complete absence of intelligence. Basis: complete absence
of intelligence

3 rd requisite: A 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 Art. 80 of RPC, but now amended by RA 9344. Basis: complete
absence of intelligence

These requisites are called child in conflict with the law

Examples:
(1) A child 15 years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
shall be subject to an intervention program pursuant to Sec. 20 of RA 9344. A child is
deemed to be (15) years of age on the day of the 15 th anniversary of his/her birthdate.

(2) A child above (15) but below (18) is exempt from criminal liability unless he/she acted
with discernment.

Periods of criminal liability:

1. Age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below (infancy)
2. Age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years.
3. Age of full responsibility – 18 years over (adolescence) to 70 (maturity)
4. Age of mitigated responsibility -15 years and 1 day to 18 years, the offender acting
with discernment, and over 70 years old.
Discernment and intent distinguished. Intent refers to the desired act of the person while
discernment relates to moral significance that a person ascribes to the said act. Hence, a
person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his
negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling a gun.

Discernment, defined. Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the
commission of the offense to understand the differences between right and wrong and its
consequences. The determination of discernment shall take into account the ability of a
child to understand the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and
its consequences. Discernment may be shown by the manner the crime was committed or
the conduct of offender after its commission.

(1) Manner of committing a crime. When the minor committed the crime during
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot to another town to avoid discovery
manifested discernment.

(2) Conduct of offender. When a 16 yr. old killed the victim but was seen by another
person, then the offender threatened the latter to kill him if he revealed the crime
committed.

Determination of age. Can be determined by cert. of live birth, baptismal certificate, or

testimony of a member of the family related to the child. Family court must render decision
within (24) hours if there is an issue regarding determination of age.

4 th requisite: (1) Any person who, while performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3)
causes an injury by mere accident; (4) without fault or intention of causing it. Basis:
lack of intelligence and intent.
Accident, defined. Happens outside the sway of our will and lies beyond the bounds of
humanly foreseeable consequences. Otherwise, it is negligence.

Example: A truck driver who was properly driving with due care on the road at a moderate
speed, while there was a boy jumped on the back of the truck but the boy fell down, hit his
head on the ground, and died.

5 th requisite: Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force. Basis:
complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.

Elements: (1) that the compulsion is by means of physical force; (2) that the physical force
must be irresistible; (3) that the physical force must come from a third person.

This presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a

crime. To consider an irresistible force, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, it compels his mind to obey. “The act done by me against my
will is not my act.”
Force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only
without will but against his will. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

Example: A killer hit the innocent person with the butt of his gun and compelled him to
bury a dead body because he acted under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6 th requisite: Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal and greater injury. Basis: complete absence of freedom.

Elements: (1) the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to,
that which he is required to commit; (2) that it promises an evil of such gravity and
imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.

To prove: (a) existence of uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and imminent; and
(c) the fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.

Example: A person who was compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance to a terrorist
group to overthrow the government by force of arms.

Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent on real, imminent, or

reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.

The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense. A threat of future injury
is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. Speculative, fanciful, and remote fear is
not uncontrollable fear. Duress in unavailing if the accused had the opportunity to run away
or to resist any possible aggression.

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear. Irresistible force makes the
offender use violence or physical force to compel another person to commit a crime.
Uncontrollable fear makes the offender employ intimidation or threat in compelling other to
commit a crime.

7 th requisite: Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful or insuperable clause. Basis: exempts the accused from criminal liability
because he acts without intent, the 3td condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

Elements: (1) an act is required by law to be done; (2) a person fails to perform such act;
(3) that his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable clause

Examples:
(1) A person who confessed before a Priest about his criminal act of conspiracy against
government. According to law, a citizen who knows of such conspiracy must report to
the authority where he resides. But, in the case of priest, he is exempt from criminal
 liability for not disclosing such conspiracy nor he cannot be compelled to disclose any
information due to seal of confession. (When prevented by some lawful cause)

(2) A public officer detained the arrested party for (3) days to take him to the nearest
judicial nearest judicial authority. Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered
to the nearest judicial authority at most within 18-36 hours. Otherwise, the public
officer will be liability for arbitrary detention. However, in this case, geographical and
transportation challenges, the public officer cannot deliver the arrested party within the
prescribed time. (when prevented by some insuperable cause)

Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances.

(1) In justifying circumstance, the person does not transgress the law, thus he does not
commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act as
well as the intention of the actor. The act of such person is itself both just and lawful.
There is on criminal and civil liability except in paragraph 4 (causing damage to
another in state of necessity).

(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal liability. The act is not
justified, but the actor is not criminally liable except in paragraphs 4 and 7.

Absolutory causes, defined. The act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy
and sentiment there is no penalty impose and have the effect of exempting the actor from
criminal liability. ‘

(1) Art. 6 – the spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission
of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution. Example: A and B plans
to kill C. During the commission of the act, A refuses to kill C. Hence, A is not
criminally liable because of his own spontaneous desistance prior to commission aof
all acts of execution.

(2) Art. 20 – accessories who are exempt from criminal liability . The penalties
prescribed or accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to
their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees with the single exception of by
profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime.
Example: a mother, who has knowledge that his son stole a watch, conceals and
destroys it to prevent its discovery.

(3) Art. 247, pars. 1 and 2 – death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. Any legally married person who, having surprised by his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both
of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. (Banishment or only a prohibition
from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers from the actual residence of the
 accused for a specified length of time). If he shall inflict physical injuries of any kind,
he shall be exempt from punishment.

(4) Art. 80, par. 3 – the provision of this article (on trespass to dwelling or legal
grounds for trespass) shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another’s
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of
the dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to
anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same
are open. Example: in the middle of the night, A noticed fumes coming from kitchen of
B. A forced to enter the house of B through the window in order to wake up the
occupants or put off the fire.

(5) Art. 332 – persons exempt from criminal liability . No criminal, but only civil, shall
result from the omission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
(a) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line;
(b) Widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
(c) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

(6) Art. 344, part. 4 – in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape ,
the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph
shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact
of the above-mentioned crimes.

(7) Instigation. The origin of criminal intent is the inducer or the instigator and not from
the accused. It means that the accused was lured into a crime that he would not commit
and had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. Inducement of the accused
in the commission of the crime. This could lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Example: A PDEA officer compelled the accused (who is an innocent person) to sell
100 grams of shabu for the latter to sell. Accused cannot be held liable because the idea
of sale comes from the PDEA officer. Basis: a sound public policy requires that the
courts shall condemn instigation by directing the acquittal of the accused. This must be
made by public officers or private detectives. If the one who made the instigation is a
private individual not performing public function, both the instigator (principal by
induction) and accused (direct participation) are criminally liable.

(8) Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. The intent originates from the mind of the
accused, the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal through
schemes. Purpose of entrapment is to trap and capture the criminals in their execution
of a criminal plan so that they can be captured. The accused now can be punished by
law. It is a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. Example: buy-bust operation.

Complete defenses in criminal cases.

 (1) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and
the elements proved do not constitute any crime.
(2) The act of the accused falls under any of the following justifying (Art. 11) and
exempting circumstances (Art 12).
(3) Case is covered by any of absolutory causes
(4) Guilt of the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt
(5) Prescription of crimes (Art. 89)
(6) Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against
chastity (adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness)

III. Mitigating Circumstances.