Article 13 Flashcards
What are 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
Basis for mitigating circumstances
Diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender
Classes of mitigating circumstances (2)
- Ordinary mitigating
- Privileged mitigating
What are ordinary mitigating circumstances?
Those enumerated in subsections 1-10 of Art. 13 of the RPC. For those mentioned in subsection 1, if Art. 69 does not apply
What are the privileged mitigating circumstances? (3)
- Art. 68 - Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age
- Art. 69 - Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable
- Art. 64 - Rules of the application of penalties which contain three periods
Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to these particular crimes (2) (To be confirmed)
- Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within three days without the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of criminal action (Art. 268, par. 3). The penalty is one degree lower
- Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery (Art. 333, par. 3) The penalty is one degree lower
Distinctions between ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating circumstances (2)
- Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance, while privileged mitigating cannot
- Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by aggravating circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty; whereas privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime
If there are mitigating circumstances, do these change the nature of the crime?
No. They only reduce the penalty.
Ordinary or generic mitigating reduces the penalty imposed to the minimum penalty of the crime commited
Privileged mitigating reduces the penalty for the cime committed by one or two degrees lower
What are the mitigating circumstances mentioned in Art. 13 of the RPC, whereas par. 2 is impliedly repealed by RA 9344 ? (10)
- Those mentioned in preceding chapter (Art.11 and 12) when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant
- That the offender is above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, provided that he/she acted with discernment or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, such child in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs provider under Chap. 2 of RA 9344
- That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
- That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act
- That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
- That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
- That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilty before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution
- That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise suffering some phyiscal defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
- Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of his acts
- And finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above-mentioned
What are the circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigation, because not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant? (9)
- Self-defense (Art. 11, par.1)
- Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par.2)
- Defense of stranger (Art. 11, par.3)
- State of necessity (Art. 11, par.4)
- Performance of duty (Art. 11, par.5)
- Obedience to order of superior (Art. 11, par.6)
- Minority above 15 but below 18 years of age (RA 9344)
- Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4)
- Uncontrollable fear (Art.12, par.6)
Why can’t paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 12 give place to mitigation?
The mental condition of a person is indivisible. No middle ground between sanity and insanity, between presence and absence of intelligence
Cases in which all requisites necessary to justify the act are not attendant (4)
- Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger
- Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury
- Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty
- Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order
When is par.1 of Art. 13 applicable in relation to par no.’s 1-3 of Art. 11?
Only when unlawful aggression is present but the other two requisites are not present
What article applies when it is TWO OF THE THREE requisites are present in par no.’s 1-3 of Art. 11
Aritcle 69 (Priviledged Mitigating Circumstance). This is applicabe when MAJORITY of the requisites to justify the act is present
In avoidance of greater evil of injury, when is it a mitigating circumstance?
When any of the last 2 requisites is absent (That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it / That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it)
In performance of duty, when is it a mitigating circumstance?
When one of the requisites is lacking, however, there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under such since the Supreme Court considered one of the two requisites as constituting the majority in cases where there are only two requisites hence, Article 69 (priviledged mitigating circumstances) applies
Cases in which all requisites necessary to exempt from criminal liability are not attendant (3)
- Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18 years of age
- Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident
- Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
In incomplete exempting circumstance of accident, if the 2nd requisite (with due care) and 1st part of the 4th requisite (without fault) are absent, is there a mitigating circumstance?
Yes. This case falls under Art. 365 of the RPC which punishes felonies by negligence or imprudence. There is a mitigating circumstance as the penalty provided is lower than that for intentional felony
In incomplete exempting circumstance of accident, if the 1st requisite (lawful act) and 2nd part of the 4th requisite (without intention) are absent, is there a mitigating circumstance?
No. There is no mitigating circumstance at all as it will be an intentional felony. In said case, the 2nd and 3rd requisites are not present either
Define “Diversion” under RA 9344
It refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological, or educational background without resulting to formal court proceedings
Define “Diversion Program” under RA 9344
The program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is found responsible for an offense without resoting to formal court proceedings
Conditions for children in conflict with the law to undergo diversion programs without undergoing court proceedings (3)
- Where imposable penalty for the crime committed is not more than six years imprisonment - Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation involving the LCPC (Local Councils for the Protection of Children)
- In victimless crimes, where the imposable penalty is not more than six years of imprisonment - Requires coordination with the BCPC (Barangay Council for the Protection of Children)
- Where the imposable penalty for the crime commiteted exceeds six years imprisonment - diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court
When may a contract of diversion be entered into?
During a conferencing, mediation or conciliation(CMC) proceeding. This is when the child admits the commission of the act during said CMC and a diversion program is developed as evidenced by the contract of diversion, which is binding and effective if accepted by the parties concerned
What happens to the period of prescription of the offense when the child in conflict with the law undergoes a diversion program?
The period of prescription of the offense shall be suspended during the effectivity of the diversion program, but not exceeding a period of TWO years (Sec. 26 of RA 9344)
Where may a diversion of child in conflict with the law be conducted under RA 9344?
At the Katarungang Pambarangay (Sec. 24 RA 9344)
What kind of mitigating circumstance is provided if the offender is over 70 years old
Ordinary/generic mitigating circumstance. Article 68 does not include the case of offenders over 70 years old
Requirement for paragraph 3 Article 13 - That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
The facts proven show that there is a:
1. Notable and;
2. Evident disproportion
between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences
How must intention be judged?
Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by EXTERNAL ACTS
These may show that the accused intended the wrong committed (4)
- Weapon used
- Part of the body injured
- Injury inflicted
- Manner the said injury is inflicted
When the offender applied brute force, is par. 3 Art. 13 applicable?
No. This is because death may ensue as a natural consequence of brute force
In applying par. 3 Art.13, what is considered at the moment the person is committing the crime?
Intention of the offender at the moment when the person is committing the crime
Does the intention during the planning stage apply to par. 3 Art. 13?
No
Can the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong be appreciated favorably in robbery with homicide?
Yes
Is lack of intent so grave a wrong appreciable in a murder qualified by treachery?
No. Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is not appreciated where the offense committed is characterized by treachery
Is lack of intent to kill a mitigating circumstance in phyiscal injuries?
No. In crimes against persons who do not die as a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere phyiscal injuries, but it does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under par.3 Art. 13
Can lack of intent (par.3 Art.13) apply to felonies by negligence?
No. Because in felonies through negligence, the offender acts without intent
Does par. 3 Art. 13 apply to felonies where the intention of the offender is immaterial?
No. Like in the case of unintentional abortion, where the abortion that resulted is not intended by the offender, the mitigating circumstance that the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed is not applicable
However, in the case of People v Flameno, where the accused only intended to maltreat the complainant only, the mitigating circumstance in par. 3 Art. 13 will apply
Define unintentional abortion
It is committed by any person who, by violence, shall cause the killing of the foetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the foetus from the maternal womb, causing its death, but unintentionally (Art. 257)
Does par. 3 Art. 13 apply in offenses like defamation and slander where there are no physical injuries or material harm?
No. It only applies to offenses resulting in phyiscal injuries or material harm.
However, in Perez v. People, par.3 Art. 13 was applied as a mitigating circumstance in the malversation of public funds
What is provocation?
Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating any one
Requisites for provocation (3)
- That the provocation must be SUFFICIENT
- That it must ORIGINATE FROM THE OFFENDED PARTY
- That the provocation must be IMMEDIATE to the act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked
Define “sufficient” in terms of sufficient provocation
Means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
The circumstances that which sufficiency of the provocation will depend on (3)
- Act constituting the provocation
- Social standing of the person provoked
- Place and the time when the provocation is made
Is there sufficient provocation when the accused seeks out the deceased even when the latter challenges the accused to fight?
No. Under U.S. v. Mendez, the accused was ready and willing to fight the deceased even before the latter challenges the accused to fight
Can the performance of duty be considered provocation?
No. The performance of a duty is not a source of provocation
Difference between sufficient provocation as requisite of incomplete self-defense and as a mitigating circumstance
As an element of self-defense, it pertains to its absence on the part of the person defending himself
As a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the part of the offended party
Is there still provocation as a mitigating circumstance when the deceased was killed after he had fled?
No. The provocation by the deceased in the first stage of the fight is not a mitigating circumstance when the accused killed him after he had fled
Can there be any delay between the provocation and the commission of the crime?
No. There should not be any interval of time and they must be immediate to each other
Can threat for bodily harm be sufficient provocation?
Yes. If it immediately preceded the act. However, it should not be offenseive and positively strong, in this case it would considered unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense
Can vague threats (“If you do not agree, beware”) be considered sufficient provocation?
No. But “Follow us if you dare and we will kill you” will suffice as sufficient provocation as a threat
Requisites of Par. 5 Art. 13 of the RPC - Vindication of a grave offense (2)
- That there be 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 within the same degree
- That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A LAPSE OF TIME IS ALLOWED between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
Does par.5 Art. 13 of the RPC (Vindication of a grave offense) apply to the in-laws(relatives by affinity) of the surviving spouse?
Yes. The relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity
Spanish text for “immediate”
Proxima
Distinguish provocation from vindication (3)
- In provocation, it is made directly only to the person commiting the felony; in vindication, the grave offense may be committed also against the offender’s relatives mentioned by the law
- In provocation, the cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense, in vindication the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives mentioned by the law
- In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act (no interval of time); in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused
Reason for the difference between provocation and vindication
The greater leniency for vindication is because that it concerns the honor of a person rather than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat
Circumstances considered by the court in considering the gravity of the offense in vindication (2)
- Social standing of the person
- Place and time when the insult(act) was made
Should the grave offense be DIRECTLY REFERRING to the accused?
Yes. Under People v Benito, the remark by the deceased regarding the Civil Service Commission in general did not suffice as a grave offense committed against the accused, who was part of the Civil Service Commission
Can vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation be counted separately and independently?
No. Vindication of a grave offense is incompatible with passion or obfuscation
