CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART.11)
2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART.12)
3. AGGRAVITING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART.14)
4. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ART.13)
5. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (ART.15)
ART. 11 JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Justifying circumstances – refers to defenses that provide for lawful

justifications or reasons as to why the accused committed the crime
and thereby resulting in no criminal liability.
• THOSE WHERE THE ACT OF A PERSON IS SAID TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW
• THE PERSON IS DEEMED NOT TO HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE LAW
• THERE IS NO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY EXCEPT IN PARAGRAPH 4

1. SELF-DEFENSE – ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS,

PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES CONCUR:
 LEGAL BASIS

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any

criminal liability:
1. who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur;
 First- Unlawful aggression. (Most important element for self-
defense)
 Second- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it.
 Third- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself.
Note: sarang jukup in 3 ini ampa sya matawag self-defense
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein.
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.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which
causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are
present;
 First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
 Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
 Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose
 EFFECTS OF JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1) Admission by the accused

An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which
would otherwise engender criminal liability. However, he asserts that
he is justified in committing the acts. In the process of proving a
justifying circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed acts,
which may justify the existence of an offense were it not for the
exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused
fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances. (Velasquez v.
People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017, Per Leonen, J.)
2) Burden shifts to accused
The accused’s admission enables the prosecution to dispense with
discharging its burden of proving that the accused performed acts,
which would otherwise be the basis of criminal liability. All that
remains to be established is whether the accused were justified in
acting as he or she did. To this end, the accused’s case must rise on its
own merits. (Velasquez v. People, supra.)
3) Quantum of proof: clear and convincing evidence
[T]he defense is not required to prove, with absolute certainty, the facts
constituting its defense. The accused is required only to prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, the justifying circumstances he has invoked. Clear and
convincing evidence has been described as more than mere preponderance, but the
proof required is less than that required of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bayle
v. People, G.R. No. 210975, March 11, 2020, Per Reyes, J. Jr., J.)
[W]hen an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape
criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible,
clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his
admission that he killed the victim. (Belbis, Jr. v. Brucales, G.R. No. 181052,
November 14, 2012, Per Peralta, J.)
Kinds of justifying circumstances:
1. Self-defense;
2. Defense of relatives;
3. Defense of strangers;
4. Avoiding greater evil or injury;
5. Fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of a right; and
6. Obedience to a lawful order.
 FIRST- UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ( THIS IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF SELF DEFENSE)

1. there must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.

2. insulting words, no matter how objectionable, without physical
force does not, constitute unlawful aggression
3. a slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
4. retaliation is NOT self-defense (Mamaus kaw)
5. The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was
attacked by the accused.
6. No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight
7. Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression
 TWO KINDS OF AGGRESSION
1. LAWFUL AGGRESSION
(DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP EX. ART. 429 OF CIVIL CODE.)
(PEOPLE VS NARVAEZ G.R. NO L-33466-67APRIL 20, 1983)
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
.
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property

2. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
- AN ASSAULT OR AT LEAST A THREATENED ASSAULT OF AN
IMMEDIATE AND IMMINENT KIND.
- AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL ASSAULT UPON A PERSON OR AT
LEAST A THREAT TO INFLICT REAL INJURY.
A. ACTUAL- THE DANGER IS PRESENT, THAT IS, IT IS
ACTUALLY EXISTENCE (ACTUAL PHYSICAL ASSAULT)
 Example: ih Ampaw kan Bakulaw nag lalapa sin kabbun, don mayan
nag juri in duwa. A lugay sin pag juri nila myasu ih Ampaw lyagut nya
ih Bakulaw sin barung a buktun. A sobra sin dugal niya mabaya pa ih
Ampaw sunuan lagutun ih Bakulaw, don man na sangga ih Bakulaw in
barung ih Ampaw ampa lyagut nya isab a tiyan amuna in sabab sin
kamatay ih Ampaw.

 MISTAKE OF FACT- THE ACT DONE WOULD HAVE BEEN

LAWFUL, HAD THE FACTS BEEN AS THE ACCUSED BELIEVED
THEM TO BE.
SECOND- REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.

1. Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION

Example. Someone attacked you with a knife but you were

carrying a firearm and you shot him.

Example. Someone attacked you with a knife but you blocked

it, and the assailant ran away. You chased him and killed him.
 2. NECESSITY OF THE MEANS USED
Example:

1. Someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm
and you shot him.
2. Someone shouted at you and slapped you in the face. Feeling angry,
you shot him in the head.

 Perfect equality between the weapons used is NOT required.

Not material commensurability but only rational equivalence
-Suntok kaw, suntukon mo daisab, bang 3 tao in atu awn dyara laring
bang awn pistol mo bomba na!
 SELF DEFENSE DEFENSE OF RELATIVES DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

1. Unlawful Aggression. 1. Unlawful Aggression. 1. Unlawful Aggression.

2. Reasonable necessity 2. Reasonable necessity

2. Reasonable necessity of the means of of the means of
of the means of employed to prevent or employed to prevent or
employed to prevent or repel it. repel it.
repel it.

3. In case the provocation 3. The person defending

3. Lack of Sufficient was given by the be not induced by
provocation on the part person attacked, the revenge, resentment,
of the person one making the or other evil motive
defending himself defense had no part
therein.
THIRD – LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE
PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF

 PROVOCATION
- Action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical
retaliation
 SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
- Provocation must be proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its
commission
 LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON
THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING
HIMSELF.
 When no provocation at all was given by the person
defending
 Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient
 Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not
given by the person defending himself
 The provocation was not proximate and immediate
to the act of aggression
What will happen if ONE or SOME of the REQUISITES if Self-
Defense are NOT PRESENT?

 Bang yroon in Unlawful Aggression- Self defense cannot

be validly invoke. Tumtuma nyo yroon Self defense bang
way in Unlawful Aggression. Pasal important ini Unlawful
Aggression a self defense damikyan amu ini in foundation
sin self defense.

 What ep bang Unlawful Aggression lang in awn?

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are
mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.library
 ORDINARY MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
 Penalty provides 2 indivisible penalties.
Example: Reclusion Perpetua to Death
 Reclusion Perpetua (Art.63)
Bang present in Mitigating Circumstance, in penalties
kaniya mataas mahulog pa mababa penalties.

What ep bang 2 conditions or requisites in present?

bang duwa in awn, Art. 69 PREVILEGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
 Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty
lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is
not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some
of the conditions required to justify the same
or to exempt from criminal liability in the
several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12,
provided that the majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption
present or lacking.
 PREVILEDGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
 Example:

HOMICIDE under Art. 249

Imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal
Prison Mayor (1 Degree Lower)
Prison Correccional (2 Degrees Lower)

In what case is the accused NOT criminally liable even in the

absence of any of the conditions for Self-Defense?

Answer: RA 9262 Anti Violence Against Women and Their Children

Act of 2004 (VAWC) Sec. 26 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
 CYCLE OF
VIOLENCE
TENSION-
BUILDING
PHASE

TRANQUIL, ACUTE BATTERING

LOVING INCIDENT
PHASE
THREE PHASES OF THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE

1. TENSION- BUILDING PHASE- minor battering

occurs– it could be verbal or slight physical abuse
or another form of hostile behavior.
2. ACUTE BATTERING INCIDENT- is said to be
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,
sometimes, death.
3. TRANQUIL LOVING PHASE- a period wherein the
couple experience profound relief.
People vs Genosa G. R. No. 135981- Jan. 15, 2004
 RELATIVES DEFENDED UNDER PAR. 2

1. SPOUSE
2. ASCENDANTS
3. DESCENDANTS
4. LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED
BROTHERS AND SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY
AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES
5. RELATIVES BY CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE
FOURYH CIVIL DEGREE
ASCENDANTS
GRANDPARENTS

PARENTS

YOU
DESCENDANTS
YOU

CHILDREN

GRANDCHILDREN
 RELATIVES BY
CONSANGUINITY WITHIN THE 4TH CIVIL DEGREE

GRANDFATHER

UNCLE
FATHE
R

YOU BROTHER COUSIN

RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME
DEGREE
 PARENTS – IN- LAW
 SISTER/BROTHER- IN- LAW
 SON/DAUGHTER- IN- LAW

IN WORD AFFINITY BY MARRIAGE TUMTUMA NYO!

COMMON LAW SPOUSES- COUPLES WHO LIVE
TOGETHER AS SPOUSES, BUT HAVE NOT LEGALLY
MARRIED EACH OTHER.

BANG MO DEFENSE SAN IN LIVE IN MO OR KABIT MO

BUKON SYA DEFENSE OF RELATIVES, DEFENSE OF
STRANGER SYA.
 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

 UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
 REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO
PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
 IN CASE OF PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON
ATTACKED, THE ONE MAKING THE DEFENSE HAD NO PART
THEREIN.

EXAMPLE:
OPLOK KITA NYA IH BUTIG MYAMANAW IBAN BROTHER NYA BAKUL. OPLOK GI
PULLED OUT NYA IN LARING AMPA NYA SUNG DUGSUAN I BUTIG PERO NAKA
STEPPED BACK SYA. A WALA MAN KYUGDAN I BUTIG, DUMUGSU DA MASI I
OPLOK, KITA MAN I BAKUL NA NAGDARA PISTOL, GI PULLED OUT NYA IN
PISTOL NYA AMPA NYA TIMBAK IH OPLOK , MYATAY IH OPLOK .
 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES- UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MAY
DEPEND UPON THE HONEST BELIEF OF THE ONE
MAKING THE DEFESE.

EXAMPLE:
ABS KITA IN ATU NYA IH BOI, YAPAS NYA IH BOI AMPA NYA
SUNG LAGUTON. DUN MAYAN PAG SINTAK NYA SIN BARUNG
NYA, LYANDUG I ABS. A PAG LIGAD I ABS, PULLED OUT I BOI
IN PISTOL NYA PARA TIMBAKON I ABS. DON MAN, NAKA
LABAY IN BRO I ABS IH KOBE KITA NYA SIN TIMBAKON IN BRO
NYA. GI PULLED OUT IH KOBE IN PISTOL NYA AMPA NYA
TIMBAK IH BOI. WALA KA ALAM2 IH KOBE IN UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION IN BRO NYA IH ABS.
IN CASE OF PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON ATTACKED,
THE ONE MAKING THE DEFENSE HAD NO PART THEREIN.

 OLGA WAS WITH HER BROTHER RAMON WHEN SHE SAW HER
ENEMY LENA SELLING BALOT. OLGA APPROACHED LENA AND
HURLED INVECTIVES AT HER, CALLING HER “ PITAS! BIGAAN,
BURIKAT YAGAW MO IN TUNANG KO I MAGTANAO.”
INFURIATED, IVANA GRABBED THE KNIFE SHE WAS USING AND
TRIED TO STAB OLGA BUT MISSED. LENA TRIED TO STAB
OLGA AGAIN. PERO RAMON PULLED OUT HIS GUNA AND SHOT
LENA TO DEATH.
 DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
 UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
 REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO
PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
 THE PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENGE,
RESENTMENT, OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.

STRANGERS- ANY PERSON NOY INCLUDED IN THE

ENUMERATION OF RELATIVES MENTIONED IN PAR. 2 OF ART. 11.
AWN TYABANGAN MO TAO AMUN SUNG NA PATAYUN-
ART. 12 EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 THE ACTOR IS TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED TO HAVE
COMMITTED A CRIME, BUT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE
OF ANY OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH CONSITUTE FREE
WILL OR VOLUNTARINESS OF THE ACT, NO CRIMINAL
LIABILITY ARISES.

 IS THIS AN AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL OF THE CASE?

ANSWER: NO! EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE

PROVEN IN COURT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
 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 felony. The court
shall orders 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.
 IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
 REQUISITES
A. OFFENDER IS AN IMBECILE
B. OFFENDER WAS INSANE AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME

BASIS: COMPLETE ABSENCE OF INTELLIGENCE,

AND ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARINESS.
 IMBECILE VS INSANITY
IMBECILE
 Is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development
comparable to that of children between two and seven years of
age.
 Deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will
 Is exempt in all cases from criminal liability
INSANITY
 is one who acts with completely deprived of intelligence or
freedom of will
 The mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially of
the offender has not last consciousness of his acts.
 Is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted during a lucid
interval
TWO TESTS FOR EXEMPTION ON GROUNDS OF
INSANITY

1. THE TEST OF COGNITION, OR WHETHER THE ACCUSED

ACTED WITH COMPLETE DEPRIVATION OF INTELLIGENCE
IN COMMITTING SAID CRIME.
2. THE TEST OF VOLITION, OR WHETHER THE ACCUSED
ACTED IN TOTAL DEPRIVATION OF FREEDOM OF WILL.
 INSANITY AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME VS
INSANITY AT THE TIME OF TRIAL
 INSANITY AT TIME OF COMMISSION OF CRIME = EXEMPTED
 SANE AT THE TIME OF CRIME BUT BECAME INSANE AT TIME OF
TRIAL = LIABLE STILL BUT TRIAL WILL BE SUSPENDED.
NOTES:
 AN IMBECILE IS EXEMPT IN ALL CASES FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY (NO LUCID INTERVAL). THE INSANE IS NOT SO
EXEMPT IF IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT HE ACTED DURING A LUCID
INTERVAL. IN THE LATTER, LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF ONES
ACTS AND NOT MERELY ABNORMALITY OF MENTAL FACULTIES
WILL QUALIFY ONE ACRS AS THOSE OF AN INSANE.
 TUMTUMA NIYO INI AH!
 PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF SANITY. THE
DEFENSE HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE ACCUSSED
WAS INSANE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
FOR THE ASCERTAINMENT SUCH MENTAL CONDITION OF THE
ACCUSED, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE OF THE
CONDITION OF HIS MIND DURING A REASONABLE PERIOD
BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THAT TIME. CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE WHICH IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING WILL SUFFICE.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE OUTWARD ACTS WILL HELP REVEAL
THE THOUGHTS MOTIVES AND EMOTIONS OF A PERSON AND
IF SUCH ACTS CONFORM TO THOSE PEOPLE OF SOUND MIND.
NOTES!!
 EVIDENCE OF INSANITY MUST REFER TO
THE TIME PRECEDING THE ACT UNDER
PROSECUTION OR TO THE VERY MOMENT OF
ITS EXECUTION. WITHOUT SUCH EVIDENCE,
THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED TO BE SANE
WHEN HE COMMITTED THE CRIME.
CONTINUANCE OF INSANITY WHICH
OCCASSIONAL OR INTERMITTENT IN NATURE
WILL NOT BE PRESUMED.
INSTANCES OF INSANITY
 DEMENTIA PRAECOX (SCHIZOPRENIA) IS COVERED BY THE
TERM INSANITY BECAUSE HOMICIDAL ATTACK IS COMMON IN
SUCH FORM OF PSYCHOSIS.
 KLEPTOMANIA OR PRESENCE OF ABNORMAL PERSISTENT
IMPULSE OR TENDENCY TO STEAL. (panakaw)
 EPILEPSY WHICH IS A CHRONIC NERVOUS DISEASE
CHARACTERIZED BY CONVULSIVE MOTIONS OF THE MUSCLES
AND LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS MAY BE COVERD BY THE TERM
INSANITY.
 ,FEEBLEMINDEDNESS IS NOT IMBECILITY BECAUSE THE
OFFENDER CAN DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG. AN IMBECILE
AND AN INSANE TO BE EXEMPTED MUST NOT B EABLE TO
DISTINGUISH RIGHT FROM WRONG. (TANGA)
1. MINORITY- UNDER THE “JUVENILLE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
OF 2006” R.A 9344
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
 A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
 The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
accordance with existing laws.
2. ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT
WITH DIRE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT
WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.
 ACCIDENT (DAMINUM ABSQUE INJURIA) DAMAGE WITHOUT INJURY
 BASIS: LACK OF NEGLIGENCE AND INTENT

 ELEMENTS:

A. A PERSON IS PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT

B. HE CAUSES INJURY TO ANOTHER BT MERE ACCIDENT
C. WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT.
UNDER ART. 12 PARAGRAPH 4, THE OFFENDER IS EXEMPT NOT ONLY
FROM CRIMINAL BUT ALSO FROM CIVIL LIABLITY. THIS PARAGRAPH
EMBODIES THE LATIN MAXIM (DAMINUM ABSQUE INJURIA)
 PROBLEM
ABS, ARMED WITH 38 CALIBER AND BEN, WHO HAS NO WEAPON,
ROBBED A STORE BUT IN THE COURSE THEREOF, WERE SEEN BY ELIAS, A
POLICEWOMAN WHO WAS ARMED WITH A 45 CALIBER GUN, AND WHEN
SHE DEMANDED FOR THE SURRENDER OF ABS AND BEN, ABS SHOR HER
BUT MISSED, AND SO ELIAS REPELLED THE ATTACCK. IN THE EXCHANGE
OF SHOTS, ABS WAS KILLED TOGETHER WITH BEN AND MEKMOK THE
OWNER OF THE STORE. THE THREE WERE KILLED FROM THE BULLETS
FIRED FROM A 45 CALIBER.

A CASE INI, I ELIAS IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE DEATH SIN THREE, DUE TO
SELF-DEFENSE IBAN NA SIN THREE ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT.
DAMIKYAN A TAGDAPO SIN TINDA I MEKMOK, ELIAS IS NOT ALSO
CRIMINALLY LIABLE PASALAN HINANG NYA IN FULFILLMENT SIN DUTY
NYA.
3.
ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
 BASIS: COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM, AN
ELEMENT OF VOLUNTARINESS.

ELEMENTS:
A. THAT THE COMPULSION IS BY MEANS OF
PHYSICAL FORCE
B. THAT THE PHYSICAL FORCE MUST BE
IRRESISTIBLE.
 4. ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER
INJURY
 UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR: BASIS COMPLETE ABSENCE OF FREEDOM

ELEMENTS:
A. THAT THE THREAT WHICH CAUSES THE FEAR IS OF AN EVIL GREATER
THAN OR AT LEAST EQUAL TO WHICH IS REQUIRED TO COMMIT.
B. THAT IT PROMISES AN EVIL OF SUCH GRAVITY AND IMMINENCE THAT THE
ORDINARY MAN WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED TO IT.

AMIN DAAKON KAW IPAPATAY KAIMO IN TAO, UBUS TYUTUKAN KAW SIN
PISTOL.
 5. ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN
PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
 LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE: BASIS- ACTS WITHOUT INTENT, THE THIRD CONDITION OF
VOLUNTARINESS IN INTENTIONAL FELONY.
ELEMENTS:
A. THAT THE ACT IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE DONE
B. THAT A PERSON FAILS TO PERFORM SUCH ACT
C. THAT HIS FAILURE TO PERFORM SUCH ACT WAS DURE TO SOME LAWFUL OR INSUREPABLE
CAUSE
EXAMPLE OF LAWFUL CAUSE
D. PRIEST CANT BE COMPELLED TO REVEAL WHAT WAS CONFESSED TO HIM
E. NO AVAILABLE TRANSPORTATION – OFFICER NOT LIABLE FOR ARBITRARY DETENTION
F. MOTHER WHO WAS OVERCOME BE SEVERE DIZZINESS AND EXTREME DEBILITY, LEAVING
CHILD TO DIE- NOT LIABLE FOR INFANTICIDE

TO BE AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE- INTENT IS WANTING

 DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCE

 EXEMPTING – THERE IS A CRIME BUT THERE IS

NO CRIMINAL. ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED BUT THE
ACTOR IS NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE.
GENERAL RULE: THERE IS CIVIL LIABILITY
 JUSTIFYING- PERSON DOES NOT TRANSGRESS
THE LAW, DOES NOT COMMIT ANY CRIME
BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING UNLAWFUL IN THE
ACT AS WELL AS THE INTENTION OF THE ACTOR
 ART. 13. MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
 What is Mitigating?
- Is refers to the lessening the gravity of an offense or
mistake.
- A tungod sin Mitigating Circumstances awn na Criminal
Liability iban Civil Liability.

BUT IN SOME CASES AWN NA POSIBILITY NA MAPABABA

IN KASO SIN ACCUSED.
THE FOLLOWING ARE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding ART. 11 & 12, when all the
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.
-Justifying circumstances
a. Self-defense/defense/defense of stranger- unlawful aggression must
be present for Art. 13 to be applicable. Other 2 elements not
necessary. If 2 requisites are present- considered a privileged
mitigating circumstance.
b. State of necessity (Par. 4) avoidance of greater evil or injury. If any of
the last 2 requisites is absent, there’s only an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
c. Performance of Duty (Par. 5)
SARANG JUKUP DA IN ELEMENT SIN SELF-DEFENSE
Example : Jakol is supposed to arrest Bario, he thus goes
to Bario hideout. Jakol sees a man asleep thinking it was
Bario, Jakol shot him. Jakol may have acted in the
performance of his duty but the crime was not a necessary
consequence thereof. Considered as mitigating. (I DON’T
CARE)

2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over

seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80. (exempting circumstance)
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
(PRAETER INTENTIONEM) THAT THE INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT
INTENDED.

Example:
Binasa ih Alex Makaduda ih Exprekenex, in plano aja nya is bulihun aja.
Dun mayan ih Exprekenex nagka awn disability or na kuil bukon na maraw in pag
panaw nya atungod sin pag binasa kaniya.
- A case ini ma mitigate lang ih alex makaduda misan pa sila mag bagay. Iban awn
na criminal liability iban civil liability sin nahinang nya.

Crimes against persons- if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating.
Mitigating only when the victim dies.
Note: Not applicable to felonies by negligence. Mayta? In offender acts without
intent.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
Example: Amun kursunadahon kaw sin tambay atawa pag tripan kaw
PROVOCATION- any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended
party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Requisites:
1. there’s a grave offense done to the one committing the felony etc.
2. That felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.
Example: Amun naga trash talk a pag panayam sambal nahulog a pag
patay. Awn na Criminal iban Civil Liability.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Refer to emotional feeling which produces excitement so
powerful as to overcome reason and self control. (Dyurupang
kaw sin tunang mo kita mo sin awn iban dugaing)
Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
1. The offender acted on impulse powerful
2. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness
or revenge
3. The act must come from lawful sentiments
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself
to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Requisites of Voluntary Surrender
a. Offender not actually arrested
b. Offender surrendered to a person in authority or the
latter’s agent
c. Surrender was voluntary
Surrender must be spontaneous- shows in interest to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
Bang kya serve na in warrant, di na sya matawag voluntary
surrender.
 voluntarily confessed his guilt

Requisites for PLEA OF GUILTY

a. Offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
b. Confession of guilt was made in open court (competent
court)
c. Confession of guild was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.(Mag happen sadja ini
during Arraignment iban Pre-Trial)
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense,
or communications with his fellow beings. (PHYSICAL DEFECT)
Example: Saril yamon mo magsuntok dun mayan imatu ampa kaw
dyugsuan.

9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the

will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.(ILLNESS)
Requisites:
a. Illness of the offender must diminish the exercises of his will-power
b. Such illness should not deprived the offender of consciousness of
his acts.

Example: amin awn sakit mag pamidpid in lima ubus naka aksiden
maka timbak.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature
and analogous to those above mentioned.
a. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is
similar to a case of one over 70 years old. (Par. 2)
b. Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is
analogous to vindication of grave offense.
c. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND
OBFUSCATION (Par. 6)
 ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.
The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the
public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is
be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has
not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited
place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together
in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons
who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced
in the same title of this Code.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving
great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed
to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
19. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years
of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
-THOSE CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH RAISE THE PENALTY FOR A
CRIME WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM APPLICABLE TO
THAT CRIME.

WHAT IS THE BASIS?

BASED ON THE GREATER PERVERSITY OF THE OFFENDER
BECAUSE OF:
A. THE MOTIVATING POWER ITSELF (SEE PAR. 11)
B. THE PLACE OF COMMISSION (SEE PAR.3)
C. THE MEANS AND WAYS EMPLOYED (SEE PAR. 12)
D. THE TIME OF COMMISSION (SEE PAR. 7)
E. PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCE (SEE PAR. 9)
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
 GENERIC- GENERALLY APPLY TO ALL CRIMES
 SPECIFIC – APPLY ONLY TO PARTICULAR CRIMES
 QUALIFYING – CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
(HOMICIDE TO MURDER)
 INHERENT- NECESSSARILY ACCOMPANY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME. IT IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME COMMITTED.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT PRESUMED. MUST

BE PROVED AS FULLY AS THE CRIME ITSESLF IN ORDER TO
INCREASE THE PENALTY
 1. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC
POSITION.
REQUISITE:
a. THE OFFENDER IS A PUBLIC OFFICER
b. THE COMISSION OF THE CRIME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE
WITHOUT THE POWERS, RESOURCES AND INFLUENCE OF THE OFFICE
HE HOLDS.
EXAMPLE:
 Malversation of public funds, sometimes called embezzlement of public
funds, is a criminal offense involving the misappropriation or misuse of
public money by a public official. It generally occurs when public funds
are either intentionally diverted for personal use or mismanaged in a
way that leads to unauthorized spending or loss.
 2. That the crime be committed in contempt
or with insult to the public authorities.
REQUISITES:
A. THE OFFENDER KNOWS THAT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS
PRESENT
B. THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS ENGAGED IN THE EXERCISE OF
HIS FUNCTIONS
C. THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS NOT THE VICTIM OF THE CRIME
D. THE PUBLIC AUTHORITYS PRESENCE DID NOT PREVENT
THE CRIMINAL ACT
 3. with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
 that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
if the latter has not given provocation
 4. with ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
 OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
 Example : Qualified Theft

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief

Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
MALACANANG
PUBLIC PLAZA
CHURCH/MASJID
 6. in the night time
 in an uninhabited place
 by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense.
REQUISITES:
A. IT FACILITATED THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME
B. ESPECIALLY SOUGHT FOR BY THE OFFENDER TO INSURE THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPUNITY
C. WHEN THE OFFENDER TOOK THE ADVANTAGE THEREOF FOR
THE PURPOSE OF IMPUNITY
D. COMMISSION OF THE CRIME MUST HAVE BEGAN AND
ACCOMPLISHED AT NIGHTTIME
 Example

NIGHT TIME- AMIN MYAMANAW KAW MUWI UBUS IN LALABAYAN MO

TIGIDLUM IRUH IRUH AN. PAG SAKALI GI HOLD-UP KAW AMPA KAW TYUKAN
SIN LARING A TAIKOD AMPA KYAWA IN BAG IBAN CP MO AMPA LIMAPUG
DIMAGAN MYAGUY. (A TUNGOD SIN TIGIDLUM IRUH IRUH AN NAG TAKE
ADVANTAGE NA IN HOLDAPER)
UNINHABITED PLACE- AMIN A BUGA MO MANAW A TIGIDLUMAN,
SIMAKAT KAW SIDECAR AMPA KAW DYA PA MALAYO AMPA KAW GI RAPE.( A
TUNGOD SIN MALAYO IBAN TIGIDLUM IRUH IRUH AN, NAG TAKE
ADVANTAGE NA IN BAISAN)
COMMITTED BY A BAND- AMIN NAUBUS NA GI RAPE, DUN MAYAN KITA
SIN 3 USUG GI CONTINUE IN PAG RAPE KANYA.
7. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE
OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,
EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE
REQUISITES
A. COMMITTED WHEN THERE IS A CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
1. CONFLAGRATION
2. SHIPWRECK
3. EPIDEMIC
B. OFFENDER TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE STATE OF CONFUSION OR
CHAOTIC CONDITION FROM SUCH MISFORTUNE
BASIS:
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME ADDS TO THE SUFFERING BY TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF THE MISFORTUNE
-AMIN MISAN AWN NA LINOG, DEDMA KAW YAUN NA KAW NANAKAW.
8. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE OR
AFFORD IMPUNITY.

 REQUISITES:

A. THAT ARMED MEN OR PERSONS TOOK PART IN THE COMMISSION OF

THE CRIME, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
B. THAT THE ACCUSED AVAILED HIMSELF OF THEIR AID OR RELIED UPON
THEM WHEN THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED
9. THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced
in the same title of this Code
Example: Amun bakas na kaw na convicted in kaso mo sugarol, dun
man naka guwa na kaw a laum jail. Imisab na kaw isab nanakaw saytan.
In tawag kaimo Recidivist.

10. Has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
Example: amu in offender na commit crime dugaing2 under sin RPC.
HOMICIDE- CONCUBINAGE
 REITERACION OR HABITUALITY
 It is essential that the offender be previously punished; that is, he
has served sentence
 The penalty attached to the crime subsequently committed should
be higher or at least equal to the penalty that he has already
served. If that is the situation, that means that the offender was
never reformed by the fact that he already serve the penalty
imposed on him on the first conviction.
However, if he commits a felony carrying a lighter penalty;
subsequently. The law considers that somehow he has been
reformed but if he, again commits another felony which carries a
lighter penalty, then he becomes a repeater because that means
he has not yet reformed.

Tambay ubus daran hilo, ubus kya kasuhan kaw alarms and scandal
 4 FORMS OF
REPETITION
a. RECIDIVISM- GENERIC
b. REITERACION OR HABITUALITY- GENERIC
c. MULTIPLE RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY- EXTRA ORDINARY
AGGRAVATING
d. QUASI-RECIDIVISM- SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
 HABITUAL DELIQUENCY- WHEN A PERSON WITHIN A
PERION OF 10 YEARS FORM THE DATE OF HIS RELASE OR
LAST CONVICTION OF THE CRIMES OF SERIOUS OR LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, ROBBERY, THEFT, ESTAFA OR
FALSIFICATION IS FOUND GUILTY ON ANY SAID CRIMES A
THIRD TIME OR OFTENER.
MEMORIZE NYU INI  KC INI REFER PARA BIG CRIME
 QUASI-RECIDIVISM- ANY PERSON WHO SHALL COMMIT A
FELONY AFTER HAVING BEEN CONVICTED BY FINAL
JUDGEMENT, BEFORE BEGINNING TO SERVE SUCH
SENTENCE, OR WHILE SERVING THE SAME. SHALL BE
PUNISHED BY THE MAXIMUM PERIOD OF THE PENALTY
PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOR THE NEW FELONY. (ALAUM JAIL NA
IN PILISU)
11. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE.

 REQUISITES:
A. AT LEAST 2 PRINCIPALS
(1 THE PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT 2. THE PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION)
B. THE PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE SHOULD BE PREVIOUS TO
AND IN CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
CRIMINAL ACT.
EXAMPLE: AMIN TANGDANAN MAMATAY TAO.
12. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS OF
INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION,
STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR INTERNATIONAL
DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF A
LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER
ARTIFICE
REQUISITE: INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.
THE WASTEFUL MEANS WERE USED BY THE OFFENDER TO ACCOMPLISH A
CRIMINAL PURPOSE.
13. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION
 ESSENCE OF PREMEDITATION: THE EXECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT
MUST BE PRECEDED BY COOL THOUGHT AND REFLECTION UPON THE
RESOLUTION TO CARRY OUT THE CRIMINAL INTENT.
 Requisites:
 Time
 Act manifested
 Sufficient lapse of time
14. THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.
 CRAFT- INVOLVES IN TELLECTUAL TRICKERY AND CUNNING ON THE PART
OF THE ACCUSED. IT IS EMPLOYED AS A SCHEME IN THE EXECUTION OF
THE CRIME.
EXAMPLE:
 ACCUSED PRETENDED TO BE MEMBERS OF THE CONSTABULARY
 ACCUSED IN ORDER TO PERPETRATE RAPE
 USED CHOCOLATES CONTAINING DRUGS

(DARAN YU USAL A CASE ESTAFA)

 FRAUD- INVOLVES INSIDIOUS WORDS OR MACHINATIONS USED TO
INDUCE VICTIM TO ACT IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE
OFFENDER TO CARRY OUT HIS DESIGN.
 DISGUISE- RESORTING TO ANY DEVICE TO CONCEAL IDENTITY. PURPOSE
OF CONCEALING IDENTITY IS A MUST.
15. THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR MEANS BE
EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
 IN ARTICLE INI MA OBSERVE MO A MGA QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES CRIME SIN MURDER. NA BANG HAWNU
IN OFFERNDER IMUSAL SYA SUPERIOR STRENGTH PARA
PATAYUN IN AMBOOK BIKTIMA.
16. THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).
 IN ARTICLE INI PAGYANUN TREACHERY AMUN NAMUNO KAW O
PANIPO IN PAGPATAY MO.
EXAMPLE:
BYUNU I LUPOT IH DAPAW SAHBU INI NATUTUG (BYUNU MO A
WAYRUN KAMALAY-MALAY IN TAWAG TREACHERY)
17. THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT
ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE
ACT.
 EXAMPLE
1. CRIME AGAINST CHASTITY
2. LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
3. LIGHT OR GRACE COERCION
4. MURDER

NI RAPE SIN AMBOOK RAPIST IN ASAWA I LUPOT A ALUPAN

NYA, A LAUM BILIK NILA PA INI SAHBU IN SYA NAKA GAPOS
ATAWA PYOSASAN A LILINGKURAN.
18. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN
UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
 EXAMPLE:
IH MONGGO NANAKAW PA BAY I LASSUT LIMABAY INI
DAING A TAIKOD LAWANG SIN BAY

19. THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN AN ENTRANCE OF A

CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.
.
 EXAMPLE:

IH MONGGO LYARAK IN LAWANG BAY IH LASSUT LIMABAY INI DAING

A TAIKOD LAWANG SIN BAY AMPA KYAWA IN MGA KAPANYAPAN
 20. THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS
OF AGE OR BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR
OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY RA 5438).

 THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE

(AMUN BATA BATA MINOR YU USAL SIN SINDIKATO)
 BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
(IMUSAL IN CRIMINAL CAR PARA MA USAL NILA
TUMAKAS)
21. THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE
DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY
CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT
NECESSARY
 EXAMPLE FOR ITS COMMISSIONS.
AMIN NAG COMMIT CRIME, PYAISAN MO IN TAO AMPA
MO DYA PUGAN.

BUKOIN INI SAME IBAN SIN PARAGRAPH 17 AMUN RAPE

IN ASAWA NYA ALUPAN NYA.
ARTICLE 15 ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCES

THEIR CONCEPT- ARE THOSE WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS
AGGRAVING OR MITIGATING ACCORDING TO THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF
THE CRIME AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS ATTENDING ITS COMMISSION. THEY
ARE THE RELATIONSHIP, INTOXICATION AND THE DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION
AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER.
 THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION WHEN THE OFFENDED PARTY IN THE SPOUSE, ASCEDANT,
DESCENDANT, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTER OR
RELATIVE BY AFFINITY IN THE SAME DEGREES OF THE OFFENDER.
TUMTUMA NYO!
ONLY CIVIL LIABILITY COMMITTED BY SPOUSES, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS
OR RELATIVES BY AFFINITY IN SAME LINE: BROTHER, SISTER-IN-LAW. CRIME
INVOLVES:
1. THEFT
2. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (RELATIONSHIP)
 OTHER CONDITION
EXAMPLE: IN ACCUSED NASAGGAW NYA IN ASAWA NYA IBAN SIN BRITHER IN
LAW NYA NG ICE CREAM YUMMY. PIYATAY NYA INI KARUWA.
A EXAMPLE INI MANJARE SYA MITIGATE, BANG NYO KATUMTUMAN PA IN
LYABAYAN ARTICLE 13 A PARAGRAPH 6 THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN
IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS NATURALLY, TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR
OBFUSCATION.
 INTOXICATION
WHEN THE OFFENDER HAS COMMITTED A FELONY IN A STATE OF
INTOXICATION. THE OFFENDERS MENTAL FACULTIES MUST BE AFFECTED BY
DRUNKENNES, AMOUNT OF LIQOUR MUST BE OF SUCH QUANTITY AS TO
BLUR THE OFFENDERS REASON AND DEPRICE HIM OF SELF CONTROL.
 EXAMPLE A MITIGATING (INTOXICATION)

ALBANI, KIMAWA TUBIG A REF NILA, SAKALI A WALA PANGHATI NYA IN PITCHER IN LOON GIN AKANSA INI
NAHILO. PAG UBUS BIGLA INI NAG SUPER SAYANG KYAWA IN SAMURAI NYA AMPA YUBUS LYAGUT IN TAO
MAGLALABAY A KANILA.

LAONG SIN SARA! WELL ACCORDING TO THE SCENARIO IF THE INTOXICATION IS ACCIDENTAL, WHERE
THE ACCUSED WAS DRUNK AT THE TIME OF COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, IT WILL CONSIDERED AS
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

 EXAMPLE AGGRAVATING (INTOXICATION)

I ANGKOL AY SAKIT ATAY NYA KAN ANGKONG, SUMAGAWA DI NYA INI KAYA ATUHAN, KAYA IN HINANG I
ANGKOL MINUM ALAK A UPAYA TUMAAS IN CONFIDENCE MAMINASA KAN ANGKONG SAMBIL NAPATAY
NYA INI.

LAONG SIN SARA! ACCORDING TO THE SCENARIO IF THE TOXICATION IS ACCIDENTAL, WHERE THE
ACCUSED WAS DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME. IT WILL CONSIDERED AS
MTIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
CRIMSSCKNOWS!