Art.13 Mitigating Circumstances Flashcards
What are Mitigating Circumstances?
Mitigating Circumstances
- Those which if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
- A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances arising from the same fact.*
What does Par1 of Art.13 Mitigate?
Par. 1.
INCOMPLETE Justifying of Exempting Circumstances.
- Applies when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are NOT attendant.
- Provided, majority of the requisites are present.
When is there a mitigating circumstance in:
Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of a stranger ?
unlawful aggression must be present, it being an indispensable requisite.
- It is considered ordinary mitigating circumstance if only unlawful aggression is present.
- When two of the three requisities (i.e., unlawful aggression and any one of the other two), the case should be considered a privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in Art. 69 of this Code.
When is there Mitigating Circumstance for
“Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury”?
- if any of the last two requisites (i.e., injury feared be greater than that to avoid it or there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it)
When is there mitigating circumstance in “Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty” ?
In People vs. Oanis:
when one of the two requisities under par. 5 of Art. 11 was present, Article 69 was applied. Thus, when the justifying or exempting circumstance has two requisites only, it seems that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance in this case but a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Are there mitigating circumstances in “Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order”?
What element need be present?
The order must always be from a superior.
Is there need for a mitigating circumstance in “Incomplete exempting circumstance of a minority over 9 and under 15 years of age” ?
a minor who is over 9 years of age and under 15 years old who acted with discernment, he is entitled to a mitigating circumstance under Art. 68.
BUT….
under RA 9344 said offender is exempt from criminal liability.
so no.. not anymore.
When is there mitigating circumstance for “Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident” ?
Under par. 4 of Article 12 there are four requisites, namely:
- a person is performing a lawful act;
- with due care;
- he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
- without fault or intention of causing it.
- If the requisites (2) with due care and (4) without fault are absent = Art. 365, in effect there is a mitigating circumstance because the penalty is lower than that provided for intentional felony
- If the requisites (1) a person is performing a lawful act and (4) without intention of causing the accident are absent, (positively stated, the person committed an unlawful act and had the intention of causing the injury) = intentional felony
When is there Mitigating Circumstance for “Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear” ?
- If only one of the two requisites are present there is only a mitigating circumstance.
In People vs. Magpantay (C.A., 46 O.G. 1655)
the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of grave fear, not entirely uncontrollable, under par. 1 of Art. 13, in connection with par. 16 of Art. 12 of the RPC the fear of the accused was not entirely uncontrollable for had he not been so hasty and had he stopped a few seconds to think, he would have ascertained that there was no imminent danger.
Is ther mitigating circumtance when the accused is:
1.Over 15 and under 18, w/discernment?
or over 70 years old?
- It is the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime which should be determined.
- His age at the time of the trial is immaterial.
What are the Legal effects of the age of offender if:
15 and below?
Above 15 but below 18?
- 15 and below – exempting
- Above 15 but under 18 – exempting unless acted with discernment.
- But even with discernment, penalty is reduced by one (1) degree lower than that imposed. (Art 68, par. 2, amended by RA 9344)
- Child in conflict with the law under 18 years of age who acted with discernment – sentence suspended.(Art. 192, PD 603 as amended by PD 1179, referred to as Children in Conflict with the Law under RA 9344)
What is a CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW?
Child in Conflict with the Law
- It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws.
Why are those who are 70 years of age or older given a mitigating circumstance?
70 years or over..
- mitigating, no imposition of death penalty; if already imposed, execution of death penalty is suspended and commuted.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence.
What is the RULE on the application of the Mitigating Circumstance, “No intention to commit so grave a wrong” (Praeter Intentionem) Par. 3.
?
Rule for the application:
- Can be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
- If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, this circumstance cannot be availed of.
How does one ascertain INTENTION?
Intention may be ascertained by considering:
- The weapon used
- The injury inflicted
- The manner it is inflicted
- The part of the body injured
(WIMB)
- Intent at the time of the commission of the felony, not during the planning stage, should be considered.
Basis: Diminution of intent.