Exempting Circumstances; Coverage (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the presence of his friends.
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain.
b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things…..
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Exempting Circumstances; Minority (1998)
John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program “Zeo Rangers.” One evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch “Home Along the Riles.” This enraged John who got his father’s revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her instantaneous death. Is John criminally liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
Exempting; Minority; 11 yrs Old; Absence of Discernment (2000)
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what she had caused. Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping’s eye. After the incident, she executed a statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping lost his right eye.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why?
b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was committed with discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping’s vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable.
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997”;
3. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not Intending to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (2004)
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (1998) Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. In Justifying Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
b. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.
Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
d. There being a wrong done but no criminal.
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter.
Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter’s honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter’s honor in having killed B since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of.
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Defense of Stranger (2002)
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites (2000)
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis, et. al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the cause of death of the victim.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998)
One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.” Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took out Tito’s gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Una’s claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self- defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements (2000)
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Osang” as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Osang”s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
Hence, Osang’s act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (1996)
A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of having acted in defense of property and in performance of a duty cannot fully be justified. Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to commit a crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered unlawful aggression on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his property rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art. 11, must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second element (reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.
Qualifying; Elements of a Crime (2003)
When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when –
a. it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
b. it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and
c. it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CRIMINAL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
