ART 11-12

Question 1

What is the key difference between exempting and justifying circumstances regarding the existence of a crime?

Answer 1

In exempting circumstances, a crime is committed, but there is no criminal liability. In justifying circumstances, there is no crime because the act was lawful

Question 2

What is the difference in civil liability between exempting and justifying circumstances?

Answer 2

In exempting circumstances, there is generally civil liability (except for Paragraph 4). In justifying circumstances, both criminal and civil liability are exonerated (except for Avoidance of Greater Evil/Injury)

Question 3

What are the bases for exempting criminal liability?

Answer 3

Complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent

Question 4

Define imbecility in the context of criminal liability.

Answer 4

One who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years. This is exempting in all circumstances

Question 5

What is the consequence of a successful defense of imbecility?

Answer 5

The court shall order the imbecile’s confinement in a hospital or asylum for such afflicted individuals. They cannot leave without court permission and a favorable opinion from the DOH.

Question 6

Define insanity in the context of criminal liability.

Answer 6

Insanity is exempting unless the insane person acted during a lucid interval

Question 7

What are the requisites of insanity for exemption from criminal liability?

Answer 7

▪ There must be a showing of complete deprivation of intelligence.
▪ It must be proven that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, or at least immediately before or after. This can be proven through medical records or clear and convincing circumstantial evidence

Question 8

Give examples of situations where a claim of insanity might not be credible.

Answer 8

▪ Blackout at the moment of the act.
▪ Where the accused was coherent and intelligent and able to narrate the circumstances of the crime.
▪ Although the accused had schizophrenic reactions, they had the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

Question 9

Does suffering from a mental disorder automatically exempt someone from criminal liability?

Answer 9

No. A showing of a mental disorder does not automatically exonerate someone. Mere abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude imputability.

Question 10

Besides insanity, what other conditions indicate a lack of intelligence that may exempt from criminal liability?

Answer 10

▪ Somnambulism: committing a crime while in a dream.
▪ Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria that affects the nervous system and causes melancholia and insanity at times.

Question 11

What is the rule regarding the criminal liability of a person under 15 years of age?

Answer 11

A person under 15 years of age is exempt from criminal liability and enters an intervention program. The age is computed at the time of the commission of the crime.

Question 12

What is the rule regarding the criminal liability of a person over 15 and under 18 years of age?

Answer 12

They are exempt from criminal liability if they acted without discernment. If they acted with discernment, they are not exempt. They may undergo a diversion program before trial

Question 13

Define discernment in the context of a minor’s criminal liability.

Answer 13

The mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of their unlawful act.

Question 14

How can discernment be gauged in a minor?

Answer 14

Through two pieces of evidence: (1) the gruesome nature of the crime and (2) the minor’s cunning shrewdness/conduct. Intent does not necessarily prove discernment.

Question 15

What happens if a person aged 15 and below commits a crime?

Answer 15

They are exempted from criminal liability and enter an intervention program determined by the local social welfare and development officer.

Question 16

What happens if a person above 15 but below 18 commits a crime without discernment?

Answer 16

They are exempted from criminal liability and will be committed to the custody of their family.

Question 17

What happens if a person above 15 but below 18 commits a crime with discernment?

Answer 17

They are not exempted from criminal responsibility, but do not immediately go to trial and may undergo a diversion program. If the diversion program is unsuccessful, preliminary investigation and trial may proceed. If found guilty, their sentence is suspended, and the Court imposes disposition measures.

Question 18

Give examples of a minor’s conduct that might indicate discernment.

Answer 18

Threatening the victim not to tell anyone, fleeing, concealing weapons used, locking the door, evading, committing the crime in the wee hours of the morning.

Question 19

What is the principle of doli incapax?

Answer 19

A child is incapable of crime. This is the basis for the exemption of those under a certain age.

Question 20

What are the elements of the exempting circumstance of accident?

Answer 20

1. The person is performing a lawful act.
2. The person acted with due care, no negligence.
3. The person causes injury to another by mere accident.
4. The person is without fault or intention of causing said injury.

Question 21

What is the effect of a successful invocation of the defense of accident?

Answer 21

No criminal liability and no civil liability.

Question 22

What is the basis of the exempting circumstance of accident?

Answer 22

Absence of negligence and intent.

Question 23

What are the elements of the exempting circumstance of irresistible force?

Answer 23

1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force is irresistible.
3. It leaves the offender no opportunity for escape or self-defense.
4. The physical force comes from a third person.

Question 24

What is the basis of the exempting circumstance of irresistible force?

Answer 24

An effect upon the individual that, despite all resistance, reduces them to a mere instrument of the crime. There is no freedom.

Question 25

Is a future threat sufficient for the defense of irresistible force?

Answer 25

No. A threat of future injury is NOT enough. The duress must be present, imminent, and impending.

Question 26

What are the elements of the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear?

Answer 26

1. The threat that caused the fear is an evil greater than or at least equal to that which the person is required to commit. 2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary person would have succumbed to it. 3. The accused must not have had the opportunity for escape or self-defense.

Question 27

What kind of fear is required for the defense of uncontrollable fear?

Answer 27

It should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb, and not speculative or remote fear

Question 28

What are the elements of the exempting circumstance of failure to perform an act required by law due to a lawful or insuperable cause?

Answer 28

1. An act is required by law to be done. 2. A person fails to perform such act. 3. The failure to perform the act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

Question 29

What are the six justifying circumstances listed?

Answer 29

1. Self-defense 2. Defense of relatives 3. Defense of strangers 4. Avoidance of greater evil 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office 6. Obedience to an order of a superior for some lawful purpose

Question 30

What is the general effect if a justifying circumstance is successfully invoked?

Answer 30

There is no crime, no criminal liability, and no civil liability. The accused acted within the bounds of the law

Question 31

What is the exception regarding civil liability in justifying circumstances?

Answer 31

In avoidance of a greater evil/injury, there is civil liability

Question 32

What happens in a trial when the accused invokes a justifying circumstance like self-defense?

Answer 32

There is an admission that the offender committed the acts but avoids responsibility by claiming justification. There is an inverted trial where the accused has the burden of proving the justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.

Question 33

What are the three requisites of self-defense?

Answer 33

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

Question 34

What is the most important element of self-defense?

Answer 34

Unlawful aggression. If there is no unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense

Question 35

Where must unlawful aggression originate from?

Answer 35

The victim

Question 36

What are the two kinds of unlawful aggression?

Answer 36

1. Physical/material unlawful aggression: an attack with physical force or a weapon, showing intent to cause injury. 2. Imminent unlawful aggression: an attack that is impending and not merely a threatening attitude.

Question 37

Can self-defense be invoked if the unlawful aggression has already ceased?

Answer 37

No. Unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance and must exist when the defense is made.

Question 38

What is the difference between unlawful aggression and retaliation?

Answer 38

In retaliation, the initial aggression has already ceased when the accused attacks. In self-defense, the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured.

Question 39

Give examples of acts that have been considered unlawful aggression based on jurisprudence.

Answer 39

Slapping one's face, a person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another, forcibly entering one's house and brandishing a gun or bolo to attack.

Question 40

Give examples of situations where there is generally no unlawful aggression.

Answer 40

Victim is frail, victim has more wounds than the accused, victim wounded in the back, victim's gun still tucked, accused unharmed, agreed to a duel, mere threatening words, accused's refusal to give a statement, accused's flight

Question 41

What is the rule when the victim of aggression is already incapacitated?

Answer 41

When the victim has fallen or is disarmed, continuing to inflict harm is no longer self-defense, as unlawful aggression has ceased, unless the aggressor still poses a threat. Exempt: Batter Wife Syndrome.

Question 42

Can a criminal invoke unlawful aggression when police use force to subdue them?

Answer 42

No

Question 43

What is the concept of reasonable necessity of the means employed in self-defense?

Answer 43

The means used by the accused must be commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack and rationally necessary to prevent or repel it. It is a rational equivalence, not necessarily material commensurability.

Question 44

What factors are considered in determining reasonable necessity?

Answer 44

Nature and number of weapons used, personal circumstances of aggressor vs. defender, physical attributes of defender, availability of tools, place and location of assault

Question 45

What constitutes lack of sufficient provocation in self-defense?

Answer 45

The accused must not have given any cause for the aggression by their unjust conduct. The provocation must be proportionate and adequate to stir the aggression. Use of violence is not necessary for provocation

Question 46

What rights are included in self-defense?

Answer 46

Honor, oneself, property.

Question 47

Who can be defended under the justifying circumstance of defense of relatives?

Answer 47

Spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate/illegitimate/adopted siblings, relatives by affinity in the same degrees (parents-in-law, etc.), and relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree (including 1st cousins).

Question 48

What are the requisites of defense of relatives?

Answer 48

The first two requisites are the same as self-defense (unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity). The third requisite is that if the person attacked gave provocation, the one defending had no part in it.

Question 49

Who can be defended under the justifying circumstance of defense of strangers?

Answer 49

Anyone not considered a relative under defense of relatives

Question 50

What is the motive required for defense of strangers?

Answer 50

It must be actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, not revenge or resentment

Question 51

What are the requisites of the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury?

Answer 51

1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 2. The injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it. 3. There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Question 52

What is an important limitation on the defense of avoidance of greater evil?

Answer 52

The evil sought to be avoided must not result from a violation of law by the actor.

Question 53

What are the requisites of the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office?

Answer 53

1. The accused acted in the performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office. 2. The injury caused is the consequence of the due performance of that duty or right.

Question 54

When can a police officer use force in making an arrest?

Answer 54

When reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome resistance, prevent escape, and recapture if escaped. They can fire upon the accused only when absolutely necessary.

Question 55

What are the requisites of the justifying circumstance of obedience to a lawful order of a superior?

Answer 55

1. An order has been issued by a superior. 2. The order must be for some lawful purpose. 3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out the order must be lawful. The accused must honestly believe the order is lawful.

Question 56

What is the rule regarding civil liability in justifying circumstances?

Answer 56

Generally, there is no criminal or civil liability, except in avoidance of greater evil, where there is civil liability.