Dili aggravating circumstance ang paggamit 1. The basis is the lack of any of the elements 3.
lements 3. Those recognized and developed by
ug picklock sa pagcommit ug rape with
homicide. It can only be considered as
equivalent to force upon things in robbery
with force upon things. Eh di naman robbery
with force upon things ang ginawa.
Nangrape, tapos ng pagrape, pinatay yong
biktima, tapos kumuha ng jewelry yong
perpetrator. Three crimes yan, possession of
picklock, rape with homicide, tapos theft.
Hindi aggravating circumstance ang use of
picklock. First reason, it is considered as force
upon things in robbery with force upon
things, buy it cannot be considered as
aggravating circumstance of forcible entry
under par. 19, article 14, rpc. Second reason,
there is no analogous aggravating
circumstance unlike in the case of par.10,
art.13, rpc in cases of mitigating
circumstances. Lastly, if we will consider
possession and use of picklocks as
aggravating circumstances, as the case
maybe, ede wala nang kwenta ang possession
of picklocks as a felony defined under book 2
of rpc. Aggravating circumstance nalang siya
palagi, hindi na felony. Yan lang, thank you,
be guided
Exempting Circumstances- These are
defenses where the accused committed a
crime but is not criminally liable. There is a
crime, and there is civil liability but no
criminal.
which makes the act/omission voluntary, i.e.
freedom, intelligence, intent or due care.
2. These defenses pertain to the actor and
not the act. They are personal to the accused
in whom they are present and the effects do
not extend to the other participants. Thus if a
principal is acquitted, the other principals,
accessories and accomplices are still liable.
3. They apply to both intentional and culpable
felonies and they may be available in
violations of special laws.
4. They are limited to the 7 enumerated in
Article 12.
Absolutory Causes- These are defenses
which have the same effects as the
exempting circumstances but they are not
among those enumerated in Article 12. They
are found in certain Articles of the Revised
Penal Code or are developed by
jurisprudence.
1. They are based on public policy
2. Examples of those in the RPC include: non-
liability for an attempted felony due to
voluntary desistance; Death/Physical Injuries
Under Exceptional Circumstances
jurisprudence include: mistake of fact, set-
up/frame up, instigation
Mitigating Circumstances- Those which
when present results either to: (i) the penalty
being reduced by at least one degree or (ii)
the penalty shall be imposed in its minimum
period. They are those enumerated in Article
13.
Extenuating Circumstances- .Those which
have the same effect as mitigating
circumstances but are not among those
enumerated in Article 13 but are provided for
in certain articles of the RPC and apply only to
certain felonies. They are called Special
Mitigating Circumstances.
1. Examples: Abandonment in case of
adultery; Release of the victim within 3 days
with the purpose not attained, in the felony
of Slight Illegal Detention
Aggravating Circumstances- Those which
when present will result either to: (i) a
change in the nature of the offense as to
make it more serious and result to the
imposition of a higher penalty (ii) the penalty
being imposed in its maximum period. They
are provide for by the Revised Penal Code as
well as by special laws.
Alternative Circumstances- those which may
either be appreciated as mitigating or
aggravating. They are enumerated in Article
15 of the RPC.
Basic Rules on Affirmative Defenses
A. Justifying Circumstances, Exempting
Circumstances, and Absolutory Causes, are
recognized as Affirmative Defenses
B. Since the accused has admitted authorship
of the act or omission, its not anymore
necessary for the prosecution to prove his
participation in the commission of the crime
or his identity, hence there may be a revere
order of trial in that it will be the accused who
will be the first to present his evidence
C. It is incumbent upon the accused to prove
his defense by clear, positive and convincing
evidence and his conviction is not that the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt but that
he was unable to prove his defense.
ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature or analogous to those above-
mentioned.
Must be of similar nature and analogous to
those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9 in the
Article 13.
60 years old with failing sight = 2. Mistake in the identity of the victim (Art 29)
over 70 years of age (par. 2)
Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for
ransom = vindication of a grave offense
Outraged feeling of creditor =
passion and obfuscation (par. 6)
Impulse to jealous feeling
= passion and obfuscation
Esprit de corps (mass psychology)
= passion and obfuscation
Voluntary restitution of stolen property
= voluntary surrender (par 7)
Extreme poverty and necessity(Art 11 par. 4)
= Incomplete justification (par 1 of Art 13)
Testifying for the prosecution
= Plea to guilty
Mitigating circumstances which are personal
to the offenders.
1. From the moral attributes of the offender;
or
2. From his private relations with the
offended party; or
3. From any other personal cause, shall only
serve to mitigate the liability of the principals,
accomplices, and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
Circumstances which are neither exempting
nor mitigating:
1. Mistake in the blow/aberratio ictus (Art 48,
complex crime committed)
3. Entrapment of the accused.
4. The accused is over 18 years of age
5. Performance of righteous action
The MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Par 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR
EXEMPTING CIRUMSTANCES
> Applies, when all the requisites necessary to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal
liability are NOT attendant.
> It is considered a privileged mitigating
circumstance, provided, majority of the
elements required to justify or exempt are
present.
> But in the case of incomplete self-defense,
defense of relatives, and defense of a
stranger, unlawful aggression must be
present, it being an indispensable requisite.
Par 2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD
Par 3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE
A WRONG (Praeter Intentionem)
> Offender did not intend to commit so grave
a wrong
> Disproportion of the means employed to
execute the crime and the consequences
produced
Rule for the application:
Can be taken into account only when the
facts proven show that there is a notable and
evident disproportion between the means
employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences.
> Intention may be ascertained by
considering:
(a) The weapon used
(b) The part of the body injured
(c) The injury inflicted
(d) The manner it is inflicted
> Not applicable to felonies by negligence.
> Not applicable to felonies where intention
is immaterial.
> Not appreciated in murder qualified by
treachery (Reyes).
BASIS: Lack or diminution of intent
Par 4. PROVOCATION OR THREAT
PROVOCATION is understood as any unjust or
improper conduct or act of the offended
party, capable of exciting, inciting, or
irritating any one.
REQUISITES:
(1) The provocation must be sufficient.
> Sufficient means adequate to excite a
person to commit the wrong and must
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
(People vs. Nabora, 73 Phil 434, 435)
> Depends on:
(a) The act constituting the provocation
(b) The social standing of the person
provoked
(c) The place and time when the provocation
is made
(2) It must originate from the offended party.
(3) The provocation must be personal and
directed at the accused.
(4) The provocation must be immediate to
the commission of the crime by the person
who is provoked.
> The threat should not be offensive and
positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to
inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression,
which may give rise to self-defense.
BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent
Par 5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF
RELATIVES OR HIMSELF or VINDICATION OF
GRAVE OFFENSE
REQUISITES:
(1) That there must be a grave offense done
to the one committing the felony; his spouse;
ascendants; descendants; legitimate, natural
or adopted brothers
or sisters or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.
(2) That the felony is committed in immediate
vindication of such grave offense.
> Immediate allows a lapse of time unlike in
sufficient provocation, as long as the offender
is still suffering from the mental agony
brought by the offense to him.
To determine whether the personal offense is
grave, the following must be considered:
(1) Social standing of the person
(2) Time when the insult was made
(3) Place where the insult was made
(4) Sometimes, even the age is considered
BASIS: Diminution of the conditions of
voluntariness
Par 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
> The infliction of injury must be immediate
from the act that caused passion or
obfuscation.
ELEMENTS:
(1) The accused acted upon an impulse.
(2) The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produced passion or obfuscation.
REQUISITES:
(1) That here be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
(2) That 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 normal equanimity.
(3) The act causing such obfuscation was
committed by the victim himself.
> The passion or obfuscation should arise
from lawful sentiments in order to be
mitigating.
> May lawfully arise from causes existing only
in the honest belief of the offender.
BASIS: Loss of reasoning and self-control,
thereby diminishing the exercise of his
willpower.
Passion or Obfuscation is NOT mitigating
when committed:
(1) In the spirit of lawlessness
(2) In the spirit of revenge
Passion or obfuscation cannot CO-EXIST with:
(1) Vindication of grave offense
(2) Treachery
Par 7. SURRENDER AND CONFESSION OF
GUILT
TWO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
(1) Voluntary surrender to a person in
authority or his agents.
(2) Voluntary confession of guilt before the
court prior to the presentation of evidence
for the prosecution.
> If both are present in the same case they
have the effect of two independent
circumstances (People vs. Fontalba, 61 Phil
589) and in the absence of aggravating
circumstances, they will reduce divisible
penalties by one degree (Art 64[5]).
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
(1) That the offender had not been actually
arrested
(2) That the offender surrendered himself to
a person in authority or to the latters agents
> Person in authority is one directly vested
with jurisdiction which is the power to govern
and execute the laws, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board or
commission.
> Agent of a person in authority is one who by
direct provision of the law or by election, or
by appointment by competent authority is
charged with the maintenance of public
order, and the protection and security of life
and property, and any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority (Art 152 as
amended by RA 1978).
(3) That the surrender was voluntary.
A surrender to be voluntary must be
spontaneous, showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to
the authorities, either because:
(1) He acknowledges his guilt.
(2) He wishes to save them the trouble and
expense necessarily incurred in the search
and capture.
REQUISITES FOR VOLUNTARY PLEA OF
GUILTY:
(1) That the offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt.
(2) That the confession of guilt was made in
open court, that is, before the competent
court that is to try the case.
(3) That the confession of guilt was made
prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
> Even after arraignment, voluntary
confession can still be mitigating, when with
the consent of the public prosecutor, there is
an amendment in the information.
> Voluntary confession is usually done during
the arraignment.
> What has been admitted need not be
proven by evidence; judgment can already be
rendered but both sides can still present
evidence to prove aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
> During arraignment, charges must be read
to the accused in open court in a language
known to him; if the charges are read in a
language not known to him, the arraignment
or plea is void. It is the duty of courts to read
charges in a language known to him.
> Promulgation is physical and actual reading
of the sentence to the accused. It can be
limited to just the dispositive portion or
wherefore clause. If there is an acquittal,
the decision is final and executory and not
appealable because of the risk of double
jeopardy (People vs. Ang Cho Kio, 95 Phil
475). If there is a conviction, the accused has
15 days to avail of legal remedies, if not
availed after the said period, the conviction
becomes final and executor.
REASON: Plea of guilty is an act of repentance
and respect for law; it indicates a moral
disposition in the accused, favorable to his
reform.
BASIS: Lesser perversity of the offender
Par 8. PHYSICAL DEFECT OF THE OFFENDER
> When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind
or otherwise suffering from some physical
defect, restricting his means of action,
defense or communication with other
> The physical defect must relate to the
offense committed. E.g. blindness does not
mitigate estafa
BASIS: Offender does not have complete
freedom of action; diminution of freedom
and voluntariness

Par 9. ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

REQUISITES:
(1) That the illness of the offender must
diminish the exercise of his willpower.
(2) That such illness should not deprive the
offender of consciousness of his acts.
> Includes illness of the mind not amounting
to insanity.
BASIS: Diminution of intelligence and intent

Par 10. SIMILAR ANALOGOUS

CIRCUMSTANCES
EXAMPLES:
(1) Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and
obfuscation.
(2) Testifying for the prosecution, analogous
to plea of guilty.
(3) Over 60 years old will failing sight, similar
to over 70 years of age under par 2.