Mitigating circumstances or causas attenuates 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.

Basis: They are based on the diminution of either freedom of action,
intelligence or intent or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
However, voluntary surrender and plea of guilt which, being
circumstances that occur after the commission of the offense, show
the accuseds respect for the law(voluntary surrender) and remorse
and acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt), thereby necessitating
a lesser penalty to effect his rehabilitation (based on the Positivist
School)

(a) The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary
mitigating. However, paragraph 1, is treated as a privileged
mitigating circumstance if majority of the requisites concurred,
otherwise, it will be treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
(Reyes, citing Art. 69).

(b) Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64.
Article 13 is meaningless without knowing the
rules of imposing penalties under Articles 63
and 64.

TIP: In bar problems, when you are given
indeterminate sentences, these articles are very
important.

People v. Oanis (1943): The SC considered one of the
2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance
under Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
circumstance has 2 requisites only.
Where only one of the requisites was present, Article
69 was applied.

Q: What is the concept of incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstance?

A: Incomplete justifying/exempting circumstance means that not all
the requisites to justify the act are present or not all the requisites
to exempt from criminal liability are present.


Q: What condition is necessary before incomplete self-defense,
defense of relative, or defense of stranger may be invoked?

A: The offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression.
Without unlawful aggression, there can be no incomplete self-
defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger.

If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the other
requisites being absent, the offender shall be given only the benefit
of an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

However, if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another
requisite, but not all, is present, the offender shall be given the
benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Q: How may incomplete justifying circumstance (with respect
justifying circumstances other than those mentioned above) or
incomplete exempting circumstance affect criminal liability of the
offender?

A: If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act
or exempt from criminal liability are present, the offender shall only
be entitled to an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt
from criminal liability are present, the offender shall be given the
benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance. The penalty shall be
lowered by one or two degrees. When there are only two conditions
to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability, the presence of
one shall be regarded as the majority.

People v. Ural (1974): The intention, as an internal act,
is judged not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his act, but
also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed
at a vital part of the body. Thus, it may be deduced
from the proven facts that the accused had no intent
to kill the victim, his design being only to maltreat
him, such that when he realized the fearful
consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the
victim to secure medical treatment at the municipal
dispensary.

Q: What is praeter intentionem?

A: In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but
the resulting consequence is so grave a wrong than what was
intended. It happens where the consequence exceeded the
intention of the offender.

Praeter intentionem is a mitigating circumstance particularly covered
by paragraph 3 of Article 13. However it is mitigating only if there is
a notable disparity between the means employed and the resulting
felony.

This circumstance is not applicable when offender employed brute
force.
People v. Calleto (2002):The lack of "intent" to
commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is
weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the
body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is
inflicted. The fact that the accused used a 9-inch
hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind,
without giving him an opportunity to defend himself,
clearly shows that he intended to do what he
actually did, and he must be held responsible
therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating
circumstance.
Q: What is passion or obfuscation?

A: Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling which
produces excitement so powerful as to overcome reason and self-
control. It must come from prior unjust or improper acts. The
passion and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.

The basis considering such as mitigatingcircumstance is loss of
reasoning and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his
will power.

Q: What are the elements of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance?


A:
1. Accused acted upon an impulse
2. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced
passion or obfuscation in him.

Note: The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in
order to be mitigating.

Q: What are the requisites of passion or obfuscation?

A:
1. That there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind.
2. That the said act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his natural equanimity.

Note: This particular mitigating circumstance stands on the premise that
the offender is suffering from a diminished self-control because of the
passion or obfuscation.

Q: When is passion or obfuscation not a mitigating circumstance?

A: If the act is committed in the spirit of Lawlessness or Revenge.

Q: What are the requisites of voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance?

A:
1. Offender had not been actually arrested.
2. Surrender was made to a person in authority or the latter's
agent.
3. Surrender was voluntary.

Q: When is surrender considered voluntary?

A: When it is spontaneous, demonstrating intent to submit himself
unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent.

Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the
offender is immaterial and irrelevant.

The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or
had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not
know of his whereabouts.

Q: What is physical defect?

A: A person's physical condition, such as being deaf and dumb, blind,
armless, cripple, or stutterer, whereby his means of action, defense
or communication with others are restricted or limited. The physical
defect that a person may have must have a relation to the
commission of the crime. Physical defect is considered as a
mitigating circumstance.

People v. Torpio (2004: The mitigating circumstance
of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart
from the circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense. These two circumstances arose from one
and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the
appellant by the accused, so that they should be
considered as only one mitigating circumstance.

Q: What are qualifying aggravating circumstances?

A: These are aggravating circumstances which changes the nature of
the crime.



GENERIC AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
Cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstances.
It is not an ingredient of a
crime. It only affects the
penalty to be imposed but the
crime remains the same.
The circumstance is actually an
ingredient of the crime. The
circumstance affects the nature of
the crime itself such that the
offender shall be liable for a more
serious crime.
No need to allege this
circumstance in the
information, as long as it is
proven during trial.

If it is proved during trial, the
same is considered in imposing
the penalty.
To be appreciated as such must be
specifically alleged in the complaint
or information.

If not alleged but proven during the
trial, it will be considered only as
generic aggravating circumstance. If
this happens, they are susceptible of
being offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.

Note: When there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance
present, one of them will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while
the others will be considered as generic aggravating.

Q: What are inherent aggravating circumstances?

A: These are aggravating circumstances which are Inherent or those
that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. E.g.
Advantage taken of public position, Evident premeditation,
Ignominy, Breaking wall.

Q: What is dwelling?

A: Dwelling is a building or structure exclusively used for rest or
comfort. It includes temporary dwelling, dependencies, foot of the
staircase, and enclosure of the house.

The crime is aggravated when the act is committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

Romera v. People (2004): Provocation and passion or
obfuscation are not 2 separate mitigating circumstances.
It is well-settled that if these 2 circumstances are based
on the same facts, they should be treated together as
one mitigating circumstance. It is clear that both
circumstances arose from the same set of facts. Hence,
they should not be treated as two separate mitigating
circumstances.

Q: Should the dwelling be owned by the offended party?

A: No. It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind, rest,
comfort and privacy.

Q: When is dwelling not aggravating?

A:
1. When owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and
immediate provocation.

2. When the offender and the offended party are occupants
of the same house.

3. In the crime of robbery by use of force upon things.

4. In the crime of trespass to dwelling.

5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.

6. When both the offender and the offended party are
occupants of the same house except in case of adultery in
the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating, however, if
the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the
applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of
confidence.

Q: Is nighttime considered as aggravating circumstance?

A: Yes, if the crime is committed in the nighttime, the act is
considered aggravating as long as the following requisites concur:

1. It facilitated the commission of the crime

2. It especially sought for by the offender to ensure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity

Note: Especially sought means that the offender sought it in
order to realize the crime with more ease

Impunity means to prevent his (accused) being recognized
or to secure himself against detection and punishment.

3. The offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of
impunity

Note: Took advantage means that the accused availed
himself thereof for the successful consummation of his plans.

Q: What is treachery?

A: Treachery (aleviosa) refers to the employment of means, method,
or form in the commission of the crime which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make. Treachery is
considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Q: What is the test of treachery?

A: The test of treachery is not only the relative position of the
parties but more specifically whether or not the victim was
forewarned or afforded the opportunity to make a defense or to
ward off the attack.

People vs. Taoan: Teachers, professors, supervisors of
public and duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities, as well as lawyers are persons in
authority for purposes of direct assault and simple
resistance, but not for purposes of aggravating
circumstances in paragraph 2, Article 14.

Q: What are the requisites of treachery?

A:
1. At the time of the attack, victim was not in the position to
defend himself

2. Offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.

Rules regarding treachery:

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods, or forms need not insure accomplishment of
crime
3. Mode of attack must be thought of by the offender, and must
not spring from the unexpected turn of events.

People v. Rodil (1981):There is the aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed in
contempt of or with insult to public authorities when
the chief of police was present when the incident
occurred. The chief of police should be considered a
public authority because he is vested with authority
to maintain peace and order over the entire
municipality

Q: To what does ignominy as an aggravating circumstance pertain
to?

A: It pertains to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the material
injury caused by the crime. Ignominy adds insult to injury or adds
shame to the natural effects of the crime. Ignominy shocks the
moral conscience of man.

Q: What are the requisites for ignominy?

A:
1. Crime must be against
a. Chastity
b. less serious physical injuries
c. light or grave coercion
d. murder

2. The circumstance made the crime more humiliating and
shameful for the victim.

Note: Ignominy is not present where the victim was already dead
when such acts were committed against his body or person

Q: To what crimes is ignominy inherent?

A:
1. Libel
2. Acts of lasciviousness

People v. Torrefiel (1947):The novelty of the manner in
which the accused raped the victim by winding
cogon grass around his genitals augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy thereto.

People vs. Molina (2000):To prove recidivism, it is
necessary to allege the same in the information and to
attach thereto certified copies of the sentences
rendered against the accused. Nonetheless, the trial
court may still give such AC credence if the accused
does not object to the presentation.

People vs. Ilagan :Suddenness of the attack does not
by itself constitute treachery in the absence of
evidence that the manner of attack was consciously
adopted by the offender to render the victim
defenceless.

Q: When is an entry considered unlawful?

A: When an entry is effected by a way not intended for that
purpose. The use of unauthorized entrance must not be for the
purpose of escape.

Note: This aggaravating circumstance is inherent in the crimes of
trespass to dwelling and robbery with force upon things. But it is
aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons.

Q: What are the requisites of aid of armed men as an aggravating
circumstance?

A:
1. Armed men or persons took part in the commission of the
crime, directly or indirectly.
2. Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them
when the crime was committed.

Note: Arms is not limited to firearms, sticks and stones included

Q: What are the elements?

A: The crime be committed with the aid of:

1. armed men, or

2. persons who insure or afford impunity.

Q: When is the circumstance of aid of armed men not considered
aggravating?

A:
1. Both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
2. Accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and
for the same purpose.
3. When the others were only casually present and the
offender did not avail himself of any of their aid or when
he did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the
commission of the crime.

Q: What aggravating circumstance will be considered if there are
four armed men?

A: If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in
employment of a band.

If there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the
aggravating circumstance.