Paragraph 5 – Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

 Presuppose that a person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

Elements:

1. That 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

Irresistible force is one that must produce an effect upon the individual that, in spite of ALL resistance,
it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime

Such force cannot spring primarily from man himself; must come from the outside and by a third
person

Example:

Baculi seen by the leaders of the band who called him, and striking him w/ the butts of their
guns, they compelled him to bury the bodies

Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for concealing body of the crime of murder
committed because Baculi acted under compulsion of an irresistible force

No compulsion of irresistible force

Pretension of accused that he was threatened w/ a gun by his friend, the mastermind, is not
credible where he himself was armed w/ a rifle

Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force

Irresistible force can never consist in an IMPULSE or PASSION or OBFUSCATION. It must consist
of an extraneous force coming from a third person

Basis of Paragraph 5

Based on the complete absence of freedom, element of voluntariness

Person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he
does not act w/ freedom

Nature of force required

Force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only w/o will
but against his will. The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending
and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the
act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

Paragraph 6- Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury
  Presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by
means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence

Elements:

1. That 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

For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be invoked, ff. requisites must concur: a)
existence of an uncontrollable fear; b) the fear must be real or imminent; and c) the fear of an injury is
greater than or at least equal to that committed

Example:

Being compelled under fear of death to swear allegiance to the Katipunan whose purpose was
to overthrow the government by force of arms.

Accused cannot be held criminally liable for rebellion, because they joined the rebels under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

Death > prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine)

But if A threatened to burn house of B should the latter not kill his father, and B killed his
father for fear that A might burn his house, B is not exempt from criminal liability for the reason that
the evil with which he was threaten was much less than that of killing his father

Nature of duress as a valid defense

Duress as a valid defense should be based 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

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.

Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he had wanted to
or to resist any possible aggression because he was also armed.

Where the accused, who testified that he was intimidated into committing a crime, had several
opportunities of leaving the gang which had decided to kidnap the victim, his theory that he acted
under intimidation is untenable

Being armed w/ a rifle vs. a revolver could have resisted the leader and he was not under
impulse of uncontrollable fear

Participation in killing of Areza cannot be doubted. But because he acted in obedience of order
from his commander and acted under influence of uncontrollable fear, he is exempt from criminal
responsibility
 Defense is untenable when: 1) Accused was armed w/ an automatic carbine and he could have
defended himself; 2) Accused and partner were in a secluded place and far from superiors and they
could have escape w/ Areza to avoid ire of superiors

Command of Hukbalahap killers, as cause for uncontrollable fear

Hukbalahaps were ruthless killers and were then in a mood to inflict extreme and summary
punishment for disobedience. The place was isolated, escape was at least risky, and protection by
lawfully constituted authorities was out of reach. Accused was acquitted, for having acted under
impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury

In treason

Nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate death

Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear

“You have to comply w/ that order of Major Sasaki; otherwise, you have to come along with
us,” threat is not of such a serious character and imminence as to create in the mind of the defendant
an uncontrollable fear

Mere fear of a member of the Huk movement to disobey or refuse to carry out orders of the
organization, in the absence of proof of actual physical or moral compulsion to act, is not sufficient

Real, imminent or reasonable fear

Exaltacion case has fear of immediate death

A threat of future injury is not enough

To appreciate duress as a valid defense, a threat of future injury is not enough. It must be clearly
shown that the compulsion must be of such character as to leave no opportunity for accused to escape

Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear

In irresistible force, offender uses violence or physical force to compel another person to
commit a crime; in uncontrollable fear, offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another
to commit a crime

Basis of paragraph 6

Exempting circumstance in paragraph 6 of Article 12 is also based on complete absence of

freedom

“Actus me invite factus non est meus actus.” (An act done by me against my will is not my act.”)

Paragraph 7 – Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause

Elements:

1. That an act is required by law to be done

2. That a person fails to perform such act
 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

When prevented by some lawful cause

Under the law, priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which he came to know
by reason of confession made to him in his professional capacity, he is exempt from not disclosing to
proper authority a conspiracy against the Government

When prevented by some insuperable cause

Detained offended party for 3 days because to take him to nearest justice of the peace required
a journey for 3 days by boat as there was no other means of transportation

Person arrested must be delivered to the nearest judicial authority at most within 18 hours
(now 36 hours, Art. 125, RPC as amended); otherwise, the public officer will be held liable for arbitrary
detention. The distance which required a journey of 3 days was considered an insuperable cause.
Accused was exempt from criminal liability

Mother at time of childbirth overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility and left child in
thicket where child died is not liable for infanticide, because it was physically impossible for her to
take home the child

Severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman constitute an insuperable cause

Basis of paragraph 7

Circumstances in paragraph 7 of Article 12 exempts the accused from criminal liability, because
he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony.

In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime

Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and use of intelligence. In paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of
Article 12, the imbecile, insane or minor, not having intelligence, does not act w/ intent. The persons
under any of the circumstances mention in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 12, not having freedom of
action, does not act w/ intent. In paragraph 4 of Article 12, it is specifically stated that the actor causes
an injury by mere accident w/o intention of causing it.

Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances

1. A person who acts by virtue of justifying circumstance does not transgress the law, that is, he
does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act
as well as intention of the actor. The actor of such person is in itself both just and lawful.
a. There is neither a crime nor a criminal, no civil liability except in par. 4 (causing
damage to another in state of necessity)
2. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but not criminal liability. The act is not justified,
but the actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability, except in par. 4 and 7 (causing an
injury by mere accident, failing to perform an act required by law when prevent by some
unlawful or insuperable cause)

Absolutory causes, defined

 Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there
is no penalty imposed

Other absolutory causes

There are other absolutory causes in the ff. articles, to wit:

Article 6 – The spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a
felony before he could perform all acts of execution

Article 20 – Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. – The penalties prescribed for
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 with the
same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article -> if they profit, uninvokable

“By profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime.”

Article 124, last paragraph – The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment
requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds
for the detention of any person.

Article 247, paragraphs 1 and 2 – Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. – Any legally married person, who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse w/ another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon the any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment

Article 280, paragraph 3 – The provisions of this article (on trespass to dwelling) 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 or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any
person who shall enter a 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

Article 332 – Person exempt from criminal liability. – No criminal, but only civil, liability shall
result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually by the following persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants, descendants, or relatives by affinity of the same line

2. The 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
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together

Article 344. paragraph 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.
Instigation is an absolutory cause

Being instigated to commit a crime (smoking opium) will not hold somebody criminally liable

It is a different case when the person instigated for the accused to sell opium because mere
possession of opium is illegal

Basis of exemption from criminal liability

Sound public policy requires that the courts shall condemn instigation by directing the acquittal
of the accused

Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause

Accused already planned the importation of opium and ordered for said drug. The smoothing
of the authorities for the package to arrive is not instigation but merely a trap to catch a criminal.

If the accused had not yet ordered for the opium and because of the strong assurance of the
Collector of Customs, later ordered the opium, it would have been instigation, not entrapment

Difference between Entrapment and Instigation

General rule: No defense to the perpetrator of the crime that facilities for its commission were
purposefully placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the ‘decoy solicitation’ of person
seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and
apparently assisting its commission.

Original design was formed independently of such agent

Detective befriending a thief and arresting the same during a heist does not exclude the thief
from being criminally liable. It was entrapment. The fact that an agent of the law acted as a supposed
confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter, provided that original design was formed by thief
independently of such agent.

Entrapment and Instigations distinguished

Instigation: instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the
offense and himself becomes a co-principal; law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution; public officer induces
innocent person to commit a crime

Entrapment: ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
lawbreaker; means originate from the mind of the criminal; a person has planned or is about to
commit a crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to trap and catch a criminal

Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. But when there is
instigation, the accused must be acquitted

Instigation must be made by public officers or private detectives

Criminal act may not be punishable if accused was induced to commit it by active cooperation
and instigation on the part of public detectives
 A sound policy requires that the courts shall condemn this practice by directing acquittal
whenever it appears that public authorities or private detectives, with their cognizances, have taken
active steps to lead the accused into the commission of the act.

If the one who made the instigation is a private individual, not performing public function, both
he and the one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed: the former, as principal by
induction; and the latter, as principal by direct participation

There is neither instigation nor entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered

Accused sold Mennen Talcum Powder for P1.00 when ceiling price was P0.86. Defense
contended that government agent induced accused to violate the law by purchasing from him the article
and paying amount above ceiling price.

Agent did not induce accused to violate the law. He simply discovered the violation committed
by accused when the agent purchased the article from him. It was the accused who charged and
collected the price.

Complete defenses in criminal cases

1. Any of the essential elements of the crime is not proved by prosecution and the elements
proved do not constitute any crime
2. The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying circumstances
3. The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances
4. The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
a. Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage, and no crime under another provision
of the Code or another penal law is committed
b. Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or property
c. The accessory is relative of the principal
d. Legal grounds for arbitrary detention
e. Legal grounds for trespass
f. The crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief is committed against a relative
g. When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who
surprised his spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse w/ another person
h. Marriage of the offender w/ the offended party when the crime committed is rape,
abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness
i. Instigation
5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt
6. Prescription of the crimes
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity

III. Mitigating circumstances

1. Definition

Mitigating circumstances are 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

2. Basis
 Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence,
or intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.

Classes of mitigating circumstances

1. Ordinary mitigating – enumerated in subsections 1-10 of Article 13; those mention in

subsection 1 of Article 13 are ordinary mitigating circumstances, if Article 69, for instance, is not
applicable
2. Privileged mitigating –
a. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years of age – When offender is a
minor under 18 years of age and his case falls under provisions of Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act, the ff. rules shall be observed:
i. Person under 15 years of age, and a person over 15 and under 18 years of age
who acted w/o discernment are exempt from criminal liability
ii. Upon a person over 15 and under 18 years of age who acted w/ discernment,
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always
in proper period
b. Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable –
A penalty lower by 1 or 2 degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of lack of some of conditions required to justify
the same or to exempt from criminal liability, provided, that the majority of such
conditions be present
c. Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain 3 periods – In cases in
which the penalties prescribed by law contain 3 periods, whether it be single divisible
penalty or composed of 3 different penalties, each one of which forms a period, the
courts shall observe for the application of the ff. rules, according to whether there are
or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
i. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the courts shall impose the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by law, in the period it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances

Privileged mitigating circumstances applicable only to particular crime

1. Voluntary release of person illegally detained w/in 3 days w/o offender attaining his purpose
and before institution of criminal action.
a. Penalty is one degree lower
2. Abandonment w/o justification of spouse who committed adultery
a. Penalty is one degree lower

Distinctions

1. Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while

privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance
2. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an 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
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime.

Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty, but do not change the nature of the crime

When accused charged with murder, as when treachery as a qualifying circumstance is alleged
in the information, the fact that there is a generic or privileged mitigating circumstance does not
change felony to homicide

If there is ordinary or generic circumstance, not offset by any aggravating circumstance, the
accused should be found guilty of the same crime of murder, but the penalty to be imposed is reduced
to the minimum of the penalty of murder

If there is privileged mitigating circumstance, the penalty for murder will be reduced by one or
two degrees lower.

In every case, the accused should be held guilty of murder