Circumstances which affect

criminal liability
DAN PERUELO CALICA
 Circumstances which affect
criminal liability
1. Justifying circumstances
2. Exempting circumstances
3. Absolutory causes
4. Mitigating circumstances
5. Aggravating circumstances
6. Alternative circumstances

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying, exempting circumstances and absolutory causes

Justifying Exempting Absolutory

Circumstances Circumstances Causes
• person acts in accordance • person commits a crime • person commits a
with law and does not but is exempt from crime but is absolved
commit a crime criminal liability due to from criminal liability
• does not incur any absence of freedom, by reason of public
criminal and civil liability, intelligence or policy or sentiment
except in Par. 4, Article intent/imprudence • there is generally civil
11 of the Revised Penal • incurs civil liability, liability
Code except in par. 4 and 7,
Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code, RPC

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Mitigating, Aggravating and Alternative Circumstances

Mitigating Aggravating Alternative

Circumstances Circumstances Circumstances
penalty is reduced the penalty is may either be
and imposed in its increased and mitigating or
minimum period if imposed in its aggravating
there is no maximum period if
aggravating there is no mitigating
circumstance circumstance

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 1. Justifying
Circumstances

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is
said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and
civil liability. [Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book One, Nineteenth
Edition, 2017, p. 150]

There is no civil liability, except in paragraph 4 of Article 11,

Revised Penal Code, where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefited by the act. [Reyes, 2017, p. 150, in relation to Article 101, RPC]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
1. Self-defense [RPC, art. 11(1)]
2. Defense of relative [RPC, art. 11(2)]
3. Defense of stranger [RPC, art. 11(3)]
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury [RPC, art. 11(4)]
5. Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office [RPC, art.
(11(5)]
6. Obedience to lawful order of a superior [RPC, art. 11(6)]
7. Battered woman syndrome [Rep. Act No. 9262, sec. 26]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
1. Self- defense

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Basis of law on self-defense
The law on self-defense embodied in any legal system in the
civilized world finds justification in man’s natural instinct to
protect, repel and save his person or rights from impending danger
or peril; it is based on that impulse of self-preservation born to
man and part of his nature as a human being. [People v. Boholst-
Caballero, 61 SCRA 180, 185 (1974)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Self-defense according to Classicists
and Positivists
To the Classicists in penal law, lawful defense is grounded on
the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust
aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, and therefore
it is inconceivable for the State to require that the innocent
succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance; while to the
Positivists, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social
justice done to repel the attack of an aggressor. [People v. Boholst-
Caballero, 61 SCRA 180, 185 (1974)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Rights included in self-defense
Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our
person, we have the right to property acquired by us, and the right to honor
which is not the least prized of our patrimony. [People v. Luague and Alcansare, 62
Phil. 504, 506 (1935)]

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the
one assaulted but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of
which is protected by law. [Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book One, 2017, p. 153]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Luague and Alcansare
62 Phil. 504 (1935)
Paulino Disuasido attempted to rape Natividad Luague with the use of a
knife. In defending her honor, Natividad was able to take hold of the knife and
fatally wounded Disuasido, which led to his death. Her husband and co-
accused, Wenceslao Alcansare, never participated in the killing. The trial court
convicted the spouses with homicide. The Supreme Court reversed.

Natividad Luague’s act in mortally wounding Paulino Disuasido,

unaided by her husband and co-accused Wenceslao Alcansare, and in the
circumstances stated above, constitutes the exempting circumstance defined in
article 11, subsection 1, of the Revised Penal Code.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 As stated by a commentator of note, “aside from the right to life on
which rests the legitimate defense of our person, we have the right to property
acquired by us, and the right to honor which is not the least prized of man’s
patrimony.”

The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression

sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense “inasmuch as a woman’s
honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, than her very
existence. It is evident that a woman who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the
offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal liability provided by this
article and subsection since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the
moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor from so
great an outrage.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Dela Cruz
61 Phil. 344 (1935)
Accused Remedios de la Cruz and several others came from a wake and
were on their way home late in the evening. They were walking in single file
with Dela Cruz at the back. The deceased Francisco Rivera waited for Dela
Cruz and suddenly threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of
her breasts and kissed her, and seized her in her private parts; that she tried to
free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her down; that she could do
nothing more against the strength of the man and thus took hold of her knife
and stabbed him in defense of her honor. She later testified that she asked the
man who attacked her but he did not answer.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Dela Cruz by the trial
court as it was convinced that the deceased did in fact grab hold of the
defendant on the night in question, and whether he intended to rape her or
not, taking into consideration that it was a dark night and that the deceased
grabbed her from behind without warning and without making himself known
and refused to say who he was, and in the struggle that followed touched her
private parts, and the fact that she was unable to free herself by means of her
strength alone, she was justified in making use of the pocket knife in repelling
what she believed to be an attack upon her honor, since she had no other
means of defending herself.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Jaurigue
76 Phil. 174 (1946)
Deceased Amado Capiña was a spurned suitor of accused Avelina
Jaurigue. Capiña had made several advances against Jaurigue, e.g. snatched her
handkerchief, embraced and kissed her, and entered her room while she was
asleep. As such, Jaurigue carried a long fan knife wherever she went for her
self-protection.

Jaurigue attended religious services inside a chapel and sat at the bench
nearest the door. Capiña seated beside Jaurigue and, without saying a word,
placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Immediately, Jaurigue
pulled out her knife and stabbed Capiña once at the base of his neck, which
resulted in his death.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 In the defense of their honor, when brutally attacked, women are
permitted to make use of all reasonable means available within their reach,
under the circumstances. In the language of Viada, aside from the right to life
on which rests the legitimate defense of our person, we have the right to
property acquired by us, and the right to honor which is not the least prized of
man’s patrimony.

The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression

sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman’s
honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, than her very
existence. It is evident that a woman who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the
offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal liability provided by this
article and subsection since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the
moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor from so
great an outrage.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a woman is justified in
killing her aggressor, in the defense of her honor. In the instant case, however,
the accused and deceased were in a well-lighted chapel with several other
people. Under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility
of her being raped. As such, the means employed by accused in defense of her
honor was evidently excessive; and she cannot be legally declared completely
exempt from criminal liability.

Accused committed homicide with three mitigating circumstances of

voluntary surrender, immediate vindication of a grave offense committed
against her and upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation,
or temporary loss of reason and self control, and not intending to commit so
grave a wrong.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Defense of property rights
In People v. Apolinar [38 O.G. 2870], the Court of Appeals held that
defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of
property can be invoked only when it is coupled with an attack on the person
of one entrusted with said property. In this case, the accused, armed with a
shotgun, was looking over his land and saw a man carrying a bundle on his
shoulder. Believing that the man had stolen his palay, the accused shouted for
him to stop, and as he did not, the accused fired in the air and then at him,
causing his death. Apolinario was convicted but given two mitigating
circumstances of obfuscation and voluntary surrender, without any aggravating
circumstance thus reducing the penalty by one degree.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In United States v. Bumanglag [14 Phil. 644 (1909)], 40 bundles of palay
owned by Rafael Bumanglag were missing and, upon searching for them,
Bumanglag found them in an enclosed field which was planted with sugar
cane. He then waited to see if the person who brought the palay there will
return. Said person indeed returned and attempted to carry away the palay
but he was attacked by Bumanglag and his companions with sticks and
stabbing weapons, which led to the death of the suspected thief. They were
charged and convicted for homicide by the trial court. The Supreme Court
affirmed as, without any prior illegal aggression and the other requisites which
would fully or partially exempt the accused from criminal responsibility,
Bumanglag and his two companions assaulted Guillermo Ribis with sticks and
cutting and stabbing arms, inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds,
and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the crime of homicide as co-
principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with his co-
defendants.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 In People v. Narvaez [121 SCRA 389 (1983)], the Supreme Court held
that the actuation of the deceased Davis Fleischer in angrily ordering the
continuance of the fencing would have resulted in the further chiseling of the
walls of accused Mamerto Narvaez’s house as well as the closure of the access
to and from his house and rice mill which were not only imminent but were
actually in progress. There is no question, that there was aggression on the part
of the victims. This was aggression, not on the person of Narvaez, but on his
property rights. The assault on Narvaez’s property amounts to unlawful
aggression as contemplated by law. However, when Narvaez fired his shotgun
from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to
the attack. Thus, the second element of reasonableness of the resistance is
absent. Third element of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez
who was defending his property is present. There is thus incomplete self-
defense in this case.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites for self-defense
1.Unlawful aggression on the part of the person
injured or killed by the accused

2.Reasonable necessity of the means employed to

prevent or repel it

3.Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the

person defending himself [RPC, art. 11(1)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Boholst-Caballero
61 SCRA 180 (1974)
Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero were married in 1956, but
separated in 1957. Late in the evening of 2 January 1958, after drinking tuba,
Francisco was on his way home when he spotted Boholst-Caballero, who
came from another person’s house. It was known later that Bohost-Caballero
joined other companions in caroling. Upon seeing Boholst-Caballero,
Francisco asked her where she has been prostituting and, upon Boholst-
Caballero’s response that he had no business asking so, Francisco held her by
her hair, slapped her face and pushed her to the ground, where he choked
her. He said he would kill her. Boholst-Caballero was able to take hold of a
knife tucked inside the belt line of her husband and stabbed him with the said
knife, killing him.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The trial court convicted Boholst-Caballero of parricide. She appealed,
arguing that she stab her husband in legitimate defense of her person. The
Supreme Court reversed and acquitted Boholst-Caballero.

Our law on self-defense is found in Article 11 of the Revised Penal

Code, which provides:
“ART. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that
the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
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.”

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 As part of this law is the settled jurisprudence that he who seeks
justification for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence the
presence of the aforecited circumstances, the rationale being that having
admitted the wounding or killing of his adversary which is a felony, he is to be
held criminally liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of
the court the fact of legitimate self-defense.

All of the elements of self-defense are present in the instant case.

The element of unlawful aggression has been clearly established as

Francisco attacked his wife, slapped him, pushed her on the ground, and
choked her, shouting that he will kill her.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The second element, that is, reasonable necessity for the means
employed is likewise present. Here we have a woman who being strangled and
choked by a furious aggressor and rendered almost unconscious by the strong
pressure on her throat had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon
within her reach to save herself from impending death. Early jurisprudence of
this Court has followed the principle that the reasonable necessity of the means
employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon
the imminent danger of such injury. The knife tucked in her husband’s belt
afforded Boholst-Caballero the only reasonable means with which she could
free and save herself from being strangled and choked to death.

The third element of self-defense is lack of sufficient provocation on the

part of the person defending himself. Provocation is sufficient when it is
proportionate to the aggression, that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack
the person claiming self-defense.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Undoubtedly, Boholst-Caballero did not give sufficient provocation to
warrant the aggression or attack on her person by her husband. While it was
understandable for Francisco to be angry at his wife for finding her on the road
in the middle of the night, however, he was not justified in inflicting bodily
punishment with an intent to kill by choking his wife’s throat. All that Boholst-
Caballero did was provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of
her husband, which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self-
defense.

In view of foregoing, the Supreme Court held that Boholst-Caballero

acted in the legitimate defense of her person and acquitted her.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Alconga
78 Phil. 366 (1974)
Maria de Raposo and Dioscoro Alconga cheated the deceased Silverio
Barion in a card game, which caused the latter to threaten that he would inflict
harm upon Alconga.

Two days later, Barion actually went to the guardhouse where Alconga
was serving as home guard and delivered a blow towards the accused with his
pingahan. He failed to hit Alconga. Barion delivered two other blows which
also missed Alconga. While crawling, Alconga was able to get his gun and shoot
at Barion who was hit and who fell to the ground. Barion rose and drew forth
his dagger and directed a blow at Alconga who was able to parry the same with
his bolo. A hand to hand fight ensued.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 As Barion suffered several wounds, he ran away but was followed by the
accused Alconga. After running a distance of about 200 meters, Barion was
overtaken and another fight took place where Alconga delivered a mortal bolo
blow upon Barion on his cranium which caused the latter’s death. Thereafter,
co-accused Adolfo Bracamonte, who was the leader of the home guards, took
custody of Alconga with the view of turning him over to the proper authorities.
Alconga was later turned over to the municipal police.

The trial court convicted Alconga of homicide, with two mitigating

circumstances, namely voluntary surrender and provocation on the part of the
deceased. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, appreciated voluntary
surrender but not provocation.

It will be noted that there were two stages in the fight between Alconga
and the deceased Barion.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The initial stage commenced when Barion assaulted Alconga without
sufficient provocation on the part of the latter. Resisting the aggression, Alconga
managed to have the upper hand in the fight, inflicting several wounds upon
the deceased, on account of which the latter fled in retreat. From that moment,
there was no longer any danger to the life of Alconga who, being virtually
unscathed, could have chosen to remain where he was.

Resolving all doubts in his favor, and considering that in the first stage
the deceased was the unlawful aggressor and Alconga had not given sufficient
provocation, and considering further that when the deceased was about to
deliver the third blow, Alconga was still in a crawling position and, on that
account, could not have effectively wielded his bolo and therefore had to use
his paltik revolver, his only remaining weapon, we hold that Alconga was then
acting in self-defense.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 But when he pursued the deceased, he was no longer acting in self-
defense, there being then no more aggression to defend against, the same
having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. During the
second stage of the fight, Alconga inflicted additional wounds upon the
deceased. That the deceased was not fatally wounded in the first encounter is
amply shown by the fact that he was still able to run a distance of some 200
meters before being overtaken by Alconga. Under such circumstances,
Alconga’s plea of self-defense in the second stage of the fight cannot be
sustained. There can be no defense where there is no aggression.

It should always be remembered that “illegal aggression” is equivalent to

assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 After the flight of the deceased, there was clearly neither an assault nor
a threatened assault of the remotest kind. It is true in the case of United States
v. Rivera, 41 Phil. 472, the SC held that one defending himself or his property
from a felony violently or by surprise threatened by another is not obliged to
retreat but may pursue his adversary until he has secured himself from danger.
But that is not this case. From the very start, Alconga was the holder of the
stronger and more deadly weapons; he demonstrated his superior fighting
ability; and deceased received several wounds. When Barion fled, it cannot be
imagined that Alconga was still in danger from his defeated and fleeing
opponent.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Two kinds of unlawful aggression

1. Actual or material unlawful aggression

2. Imminent unlawful aggression [People v. Olarbe, G.R. No.

227421, 23 July 2018]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Actual and imminent unlawful aggression
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical
force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of
the aggressor to cause the injury.

Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at

the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor
must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like
aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making
a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere
threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip
where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like
aiming to throw a pot. [People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Mack
8 Phil 701 (1907)
Anderson Mack, a soldier, was sitting on a bench near a store. Deceased
Estanislao Endic, a policeman, together with another colleague, asked the store
to be closed and Mack to go to his quarters. As Mack did not obey the order,
Endic was infuriated and started toward Mack, at the same time drawing his
bolo and brandishing it in a threatening manner. Thereupon, Mack got up,
drew his revolver, and, with Endic having then approached within a distance of
3 to 6 feet, Mack fired three shots, hitting and killing Endic.

The trial court convicted Mack of homicide, ruling that there was only
incomplete self-defense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mack shot
the deceased in self-defense and is therefore exempt from punishment.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The three requisites for self defense are: First. That there was an unlawful
aggression; Second. That there was reasonable necessity for the employment of the
means taken to prevent or resist such unlawful aggression; Third. That there was no
sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.
SC concluded that there was an unprovoked, illegal aggression on the part of
the deceased and, further, that there was reasonable necessity for the use of the
means employed by Mack to defend himself from this unlawful aggression.
SC held that it was the duty of the defendant to take refuge in flight. Without
attempting to lay down a rule covering all cases wherein it is the duty of one who is
unlawfully assailed to “give ground” instead of resisting the attack, SC held that,
under such circumstances, the assailed person need not attempt to retreat where
there is no reasonable ground to believe that by so doing he can safely avoid the
threatened attack; nor is he required to continue his retreat when there is no
reasonable ground to believe that he can do so with safety. In the instant case, it was
impractical for Mack to retreat or take flight.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Nor can we agree with the opinion of the trial court that there was no
reasonable necessity for the use of the revolver because the deceased was a smaller
man than the accused and perhaps under the influence of liquor, or because on
examination, after the occurrence, it is discovered that the bolo in the hands of the
deceased was almost blunt through rust and dullness. Mere physical superiority is no
protection to an unarmed man, as against an assailant armed with a large bolo, and
his intoxication, if true, would have made deceased more dangerous.
Finally, if it be admitted that it was reasonably necessary to make use of the
revolver, it would be unreasonable to hold that in the shades of night, the
defendant, with his adversary, advancing upon him and within a few feet of striking
distance, should be held responsible for a failure to take deliberate and careful aim
at the arm or hand that held the bolo or at the legs or the feet of his assailant. The
reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was to fire at
the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life. Three shots also
justified.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Sumicad
56 Phil 643 (1932)
Accused Julian Sumicad confronted Segundo Cubol about the latter’s debt,
which Cubol vehemently denied while striking the accused with his fist. The accused
tried to escape but Cubol pursued him and continued striking him with his fists. As
Cubol pressed upon him, the accused drew his bolo and delivered a blow on Cubol's
right shoulder. Upon this, Cubol lunged at the accused with the evident intention of
wresting the bolo from the accused. To prevent this, the accused struck two other
blows with the bolo, inflicting two deep cuts on Cubol's forehead above the left eye.
One of these blows broke through the cranium.
A witness, named Francisco Villegas asked Cubol whether he had struck the
accused blows with his fist, which Cubol admitted. Upon Villegas’ suggestion, accused
surrendered himself to the authorities. Cubol died from the wounds he received. A
knife was found in one of the Villegas’ pockets, and the accused testified that, when he
struck the deceased with his bolo, the latter was attempting to draw a knife from his
pocket.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The accused was 25 years of age when this case was tried, has a height of 5 feet and 1-
½ inches, and weight of 105 pounds. The deceased appears to have been taller, larger and
stronger man. The evidence shows that the deceased was quarrelsome and was a
troublemaker, having been convicted and sentenced to jail for assault and battery in two
different cases.
From the facts above stated it is evident that the quarrel which resulted in the death of
Segundo Cubol was of his own making, and that the accused was not materially to blame in
bringing about the trouble. Two of the elements of self-defense were present, namely, that the
deceased was the aggressor and that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused. In determining whether there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by
him to prevent or repel the aggression to which he was subjected, the SC held that accused
had the right to resist the aggression with the bolo, and if he unfortunately inflicted a fatal
blow, it must be considered to have been given in justifiable self-defense. In ruling so, the SC
held that one is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the extent of
the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him (Browell
vs. People, 38 Mich., 732). It was not incumbent on the accused in this case, when assailed
by a bully of known violent disposition, who was larger and stronger than himself.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of unlawful aggression
1. There must be a physical or material attack or
assault

2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least

imminent

3. The attack or assault is unlawful [People v. Olarbe, G.R.

No. 227421, 23 July 2018]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Olarbe
G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018
Romeo Arca, armed with the rifle and a bolo, went to the house of accused
Rodolfo Olarbe towards midnight. The latter and his household were already
slumbering, but were roused from bed because Arca fired his gun and was loudly
shouting, “Mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo”. Thereafter, Arca forcibly
entered accused Olarbe's house. Accused managed to get hold of the gun and they
struggled for control of it. Upon wrestling the gun from Arca, accused fired at him,
causing him to totter. Arca next took out the bolo from his waist and charged at
accused Olarbe's common-law spouse. This forced the accused to fight for possession
of the bolo and upon seizing it hacked Arca with it. Arca died from the wounds he
sustained during the fight.
The RTC and CA rejected accused Olarbe’s pleas of self-defense and defense
of stranger based on their common holding that Arca had been weakened from being
hit on the head; and concluded that consequently Arca could not have charged with
his bolo.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no
justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression
under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril
the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an
imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the
concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a
physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at
least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

The SC reversed the judgment and held that the accused showed by clear and
convincing evidence that the death of the victim arose from the need for self-
preservation in the face of the victim's deadly unlawful aggression, and that there was
a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the same.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
2. Defense of relatives

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Relatives covered in defense of relative
1. Spouses
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
5. Relatives by affinity of the same degrees
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites for defense of relative
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel or prevent it
3. In case provocation was given by the person
attacked, the person making the defense
had no part in the provocation [RPC, art.
11(2)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Esmedia
17 Phil. 260 (1910)
Santiago Abando and Gregorio Esmedia quarreled. Gregorio drew a
dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back. Santiago fell on the ground, but arose
immediately and attacked Gregorio with his bolo, inflicting several wounds on
the said Gregorio in consequence of which he fell to the ground. Ciriaco
Abando, Santiago’s father, thereafter arrived and allegedly helped Santiago in
attacking Gregorio.

Gregorio’s sons, Ponciano and Mena, aided their father upon seeing
that the latter was being attacked by Santiago and Ciriaco. Santiago and Ciriaco
were killed. Thus, Ponciano and Mena Esmedia were charged and convicted of
double homicide.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The Supreme Court held that, based on the evidence, the two accused
arrived on the scene about the time the fight between Santiago and Gregorio
was terminating, and on seeing their father, Gregorio, lying in the mud and
water, fatally wounded and dying, and honestly believing that Santiago, who
was standing at the time, would inflict other wounds upon their father, they, in
his defense, immediately killed Santiago. Ciriaco was near the scene at this time
and on seeing him the two accused, under this great excitement, proceeded to
attack him, and as a direct result of the blows inflicted by them he fell to the
ground, dying immediately. Ciriaco was an old man, about 80 years of age, and
used a cane to assist him in waking about.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Under the provisions of No. 5, article 8 of the Penal Code, the two
accused are exempt from criminal responsibility for having caused the death of
Santiago Abando, inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these
wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at that
time. They honestly believed, and had good grounds upon which to found their
belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father. They are
however guilty of having caused the death of the old man, Ciriaco Abando.
When they attacked and killed him the other trouble had terminated and they
were not in danger of bodily harm from him.

SC appreciated the aggravating circumstance of insult or in disregard of

the respect due to the aggrieved party on account of his rank or age, inasmuch
as the deceased Ciriaco was a man of 80 years of age and did not arrive on the
scene until after the trouble between the two accused and Santiago had
terminated.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
3. Defense of stranger

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites for defense of stranger
1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to

repel or prevent it

3. The person defending be not induced by

revenge, resentment or other evil motives [RPC,
art. 11(3)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
4. Avoidance of greater evil or
injury

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Avoidance of greater evil or state of
necessity
Unlike the other justifying circumstances, there is civil liability under this
paragraph. Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code provides that, in cases falling
within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has
been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have received. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.

In this circumstance, the greater evil should not be brought about by the
negligence or the imprudence of the actor.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of avoidance of greater evil
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists

2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to

avoid it

3. That there be no other practical and less harmful

means of preventing it [RPC, art. 11(4)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Hernandez
55 OG 8465 (1959)
Vivencio Lascano courted Maria Norma Hernandez and they agreed to
marry. Lascano made preparations for the marriage but Hernandez had a change of
heart and absconded. Lascano filed a complaint for serious slander by deed against
Hernandez and her parents. The trial court convicted Hernandez but, on appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed.

A party to an agreement to marry who backs out cannot be held liable for the
crime of slander by deed as it would be an inherent way of compelling said party to
go into a marriage without his or her free consent. This would contravene the
principle in law that what could not be done directly could not be done indirectly;
and said party has the right to avoid himself or herself the evil of going through a
loveless marriage pursuant to Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Ty v. People
439 SCRA 220 (2004)
Vicky Ty was charged and convicted of seven counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. She argued that she was
forced to issue the checks out of fear for her mother who was confined in the
hospital. She also raised as a defense the justifying circumstance of state of
necessity under par. 4, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Supreme Court upheld her conviction. The law prescribes the
presence of three requisites to exempt the actor from liability under this
paragraph: (1) that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; (2) that the
injury feared be greater than the one done to avoid it; and (3) that there be no
other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated
or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. Ty could have
taken advantage of the available option to avoid committing a crime. By her
own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security
instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation.

Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater

injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the issuance
of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty’s own failure to pay her
mother’s hospital bills.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Justifying Circumstances
5. Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of a
right or office

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of fulfilment of duty
1. That the offender acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right

2. That the injury or offense be the necessary

consequence of the due performance of such
right or office [People v. Belbes, 334 SCRA 161 (2000)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Delima
46 Phil. 738 (1922)
Lorenzo Napilon escaped from jail where he was serving sentence.
Some days afterwards, the policeman Felipe Delima, who was looking for him,
found him, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and
demanded his surrender. The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The
policeman dodged it, and to impose his authority fired his revolver, but the
bullet did not hit him. The criminal ran away, without parting with his weapon.
The peace officer went after him and fired against his revolver, this time hitting
and killing him.
Delima was tried and convicted for homicide by the Court of First
Instance of Samar. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was
under the obligation to surrender, and had no right, after evading service of
his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand,
which compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Belbes
334 SCRA 161 (2000)

Patrolman Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned by the
Bacacay Station Commander to maintain peace and order at the Junior and
Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School, Pili, Bacacay, Albay. Belbes shot a
graduating student, who was vomitting and holding on to the bamboo wall of
the school’s temporary building and the bamboo split when Belbes and Pabon
arrived at the scene and, without warning, Belbes fired his gun. Belbes was
convicted of murder which was modified by the Supreme Court to homicide,
with incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfilment of duty.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The records reveal an incomplete justifying circumstance defined in
Article 11, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code. A person incurs no criminal
liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office. But we must stress that there are two requisites for this justifying
circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such right or office.

In the instant case, only the first requisite is present; admittedly, Belbes
acted in the performance of his duty. His duty is to maintain peace and order
during the Junior and Senior Prom. But he exceeded such duty when he fired
his armalite without warning. Though his protestation of innocence is
unavailing, his offense could only be characterized as homicide, not murder.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Ulep
G.R. No. 132547, 20 September 2000
Buenaventura Wapili went berserk and became violent, prompting
police intervention. Policemen, including accused SPO1 Ulep, saw Wapili
allegedly armed with a bolo and a rattan stool. SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot
and told Wapili to put down his weapons or they would shoot him. But Wapili
retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing towards the police officers.
When Wapili was only about two (2) to three (3) meters away from them,
SPO1 Ulep shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various parts of his
body. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and
pumped another bullet into his head and literally blew his brains out.

SPO1 Ulep was convicted of murder and sentenced with the death
penalty.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Upon automatic review in the Supreme Court, accused prayed for his
acquittal mainly on the basis of his claim that the killing of the victim was in
the course of the performance of his official duty as a police officer. He also
raised self-defense.

The Supreme Court rejected the defense of fulfillment of duty after

finding that its second requisite is lacking.

Before the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Art. 11,

par. 5, of The Revised Penal Code may be successfully invoked, the accused
must prove the presence of two (2) requisites, namely, that he acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office, and that
the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 SPO1 Ulep and the other police officers involved originally set out to perform a
legal duty: to render police assistance, and restore peace and order at Mundog
Subdivision where the victim was then running amuck. There were two (2) stages of the
incident at Mundog Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim threatened the safety of
the police officers by menacingly advancing towards them, notwithstanding SPO1 Ulep 's
previous warning shot and verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon or he
would be shot. As a police officer, it is to be expected that SPO1 Ulep would stand his
ground. Up to that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the
victim's further advance was justified under the circumstances. However, he cannot be
exonerated from overdoing his duty during the second stage of the incident - when he
fatally shot the victim in the head, even after the latter slumped to the ground due to
multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the police officers. The victim at
that point no longer posed a threat and was already incapable of mounting an aggression
against the police officers. Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.

It cannot therefore be said that the fatal wound in the head of the victim was a
necessary consequence of SPO1 Ulep 's due performance of a duty or the lawful exercise
of a right or office.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 148431, 28 June 2005
Jordan Magat ("Magat"), Randy Reyes ("Reyes") and Valino were arrested
in a robbery in Nueva Ecija by the investigating authorities. Most of the stolen
goods were recovered except for a flower vase and a small radio. During the
retrieval operation for the unrecovered goods, Valino suddenly grabbed a
police officer’s M16 Armalite and jumped out of the jeep. Without issuing any
warning, SPO2 Cabanlig, the accused in this case, fired one shot at Valino,
followed by four more successive shots. Valino did not fire any shot. Valino
died from the wounds he sustained.

SPO2 Cabanlig and the other police officers were charged with murder.
All were acquitted except for SPO2 Cabanlig, who was convicted of homicide,
the Sandiganbayan having found no circumstance that would qualify the crime
to murder.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 SPO2 Cabanlig challenged the decision by invoking the justifying
circumstances of fulfillment of duty and self defense/ defense of stranger.

The Supreme Court reversed the Decision and acquitted SPO2 Cabanlig
and found that Cabanlig’s acts were justified given the circumstances.

In this case, Valino was committing an offense in the presence of the

policemen when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and
jumped from the jeep to escape. The policemen would have been justified in
shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary to prevent his
escape. But Valino was not only an escaping detainee. Valino had also stolen
the M16 Armalite of a policeman. The policemen had the duty not only to
recapture Valino but also to recover the loose firearm. By grabbing Mercado's
M16 Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Valino had placed the lives of
the policemen in grave danger.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Justifying Circumstances
6. Obedience to lawful order of
superior

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of obedience to a lawful order
of superior
1. An order has been issued by a superior

2. The order is for a legal purpose

3. The means to be used to carry out said order is

lawful [Ambil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 175457, 6
July 2011]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Beronilla
96 Phil 566 (1955)
Manuel Beronilla, Policarpo Paculdo, Filipino Velasco and Jacinto
Adriatico were charged and convicted for the murder of Arsenio Borjal by the
Court of First Instance of Abra.

During the war, Beronilla was appointed as Military Mayor of La Paz,

Abra and a memorandum was issued to all the Military Mayors, authorizing
them to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason,
espionage, or aiding and abetting the enemy. Borjal was found guilty and
executed. The other accused participated in the trial and execution of Borjal.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Two years thereafter, the accused were charged before the Court of First
Instance of Abra for murder for conspiring and confederating in the execution
of Borjal. Beronilla, et.al. were convicted as conspirator and co-principals of the
crime of murder. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed.

The records of the case are ample to sustain the claim of the defense
that the arrest, prosecution and trial of the late Arsenio Borjal were done
pursuant to express orders of the 15th Infantry Headquarters, instructing all
military mayors under its jurisdiction to gather evidence against puppet officials
and to appoint juries of at least 12 bolomen to try the accused. Borjal was
specifically named in the list of civilian officials to be prosecuted. It appearing
that the accused acted upon orders of superior officers that they, as military
subordinates, could not question, and obeyed in good faith, without being
aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on their part, we can
not say that criminal intent has been established. Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Justifying Circumstances
7. Battered Woman Syndrome

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Battered woman syndrome
“Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. [Rep. Act No.
9262 (2004), sec. 3(c)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Battery
"Battery" refers to an act of inflicting physical
harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the
physical and psychological or emotional distress.
[Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004), sec. 3(b)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 BWS as a defense
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was

suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the
crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists. [Rep. Act
No. 9262 (2004), sec. 26]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Relationships covered by Republic Act No. 9262 and
Battered Wife Syndrome
1. Legally-married couples

2. Husband with former wife

3. Person who has or had sexual or dating relationship

with woman victim

4. Person who has a common child with woman

victim

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Sexual relationship
“Sexual relations" refers to a single sexual act which
may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.
[Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004), sec. 3(f)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Dating relationship
“Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties
live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during
the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary
socialization between two individuals in a business or social
context is not a dating relationship. [Rep. Act No. 9262 (2004), sec.
3(e)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Genosa
419 SCRA 537 (1995)
Marivic and Ben Genosa were legally married. On 15 November 1995,
Marivic shot Ben while the latter was sleeping. In her defense, Marivic testified
and presented witnesses as to the abuse and violence she received from Ben
during their marriage. In fact, on the fateful day, Ben inflicted physical violence
against her. She was charged and convicted of parricide by the trial court and
sentenced to the death penalty.

On automatic appeal with the Supreme Court, Marivic moved for the
exhumation of Ben to reexamine the cause of his death, allow the examination
of Marivic by qualified psychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state of
mind at the time she killed her husband, and to allow partial re-opening to take
testimony of said psychologists and psychiatrists.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The Supreme Court partially granted the motion and allowed the
reception of evidence of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the
“battered woman syndrome” plea.

Marivic admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes
self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the accused admits
killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed justifying
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in
criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person)
shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the

battered woman syndrome.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 While new in Philippine jurisprudence, the concept has been
recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of self-defense or, at the least,
incomplete self-defense. By appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is
afflicted with the syndrome, foreign courts convey their "understanding of the
justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and
controlled over a period of time.“

A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly

subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order
to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her
rights. Battered women include wives or women in any form of intimate
relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs
a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered
woman.“
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-
esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female sex role;
emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to accept
responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship will
improve.

More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the

so-called "cycle of violence," which has three phases: (1) the tension-building
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least,
nonviolent) phase.

During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs -- it could be

verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The woman usually tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind,
nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. What actually happens
is that she allows herself to be abused in ways that, to her, are comparatively
minor. All she wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence exhibited by the
batterer. This wish, however, proves to be double-edged, because her
"placatory" and passive behavior legitimizes his belief that he has the right to
abuse her in the first place.

However, the techniques adopted by the woman in her effort to placate

him are not usually successful, and the verbal and/or physical abuse worsens.
Each partner senses the imminent loss of control and the growing tension and
despair. Exhausted from the persistent stress, the battered woman soon
withdraws emotionally. But the more she becomes emotionally unavailable, the
more the batterer becomes angry, oppressive and abusive. Often, at some
unpredictable point, the violence "spirals out of control" and leads to an acute
battering incident.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The acute battering incident is said to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no
control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its explosion, and so are his reasons for ending it.
The battered woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him, and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition.

At this stage, she has a sense of detachment from the attack and the
terrible pain, although she may later clearly remember every detail. Her
apparent passivity in the face of acute violence may be rationalized thus: the
batterer is almost always much stronger physically, and she knows from her past
painful experience that it is futile to fight back. Acute battering incidents are
often very savage and out of control, such that innocent bystanders or
intervenors are likely to get hurt.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering
incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound
relief. On the one hand, the batterer may show a tender and nurturing
behavior towards his partner. He knows that he has been viciously cruel and
tries to make up for it, begging for her forgiveness and promising never to beat
her again. On the other hand, the battered woman also tries to convince herself
that the battery will never happen again; that her partner will change for the
better; and that this "good, gentle and caring man" is the real person whom she
loves.

A battered woman usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the
emotional stability of the batterer. Sensing his isolation and despair, she feels
responsible for his well-being. The truth, though, is that the chances of his
reforming, or seeking or receiving professional help, are very slim, especially if
she remains with him. Generally, only after she leaves him does he seek
professional help as a way of getting her back. Yet, it is in this phase of
remorseful reconciliation that she is most thoroughly tormented psychologically.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a
battered woman's psyche. In this phase, she and her batterer are indeed
emotionally dependent on each other -- she for his nurturant behavior, he for
her forgiveness. Underneath this miserable cycle of "tension, violence and
forgiveness," each partner may believe that it is better to die than to be
separated. Neither one may really feel independent, capable of functioning
without the other.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that, from the totality of evidence
presented, there is no doubt that Marivic Genosa was a severely abused person.

However, the Supreme Court held that there is no sufficient evidence

establishing that Marivic was afflicted with the battered woman syndrome.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 There was no ample evidence that would confirm the presence of the
essential characteristics of BWS.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the "cycle of
violence" supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic
Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court
a quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben started, Marivic
perfectly described the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able to
explain in adequate detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However, that
single incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome.

In other words, she failed to prove that in at least another battering

episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 How did the tension between the partners usually arise or build up prior
to acute battering? How did Marivic normally respond to Ben's relatively minor
abuses? What means did she employ to try to prevent the situation from
developing into the next (more violent) stage?

Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third

phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned that she would usually run away to
her mother's or father's house; that Ben would seek her out, ask for her
forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing his words, she would
return to their common abode. Did she ever feel that she provoked the violent
incidents between her and her spouse? Did she believe that she was the only
hope for Ben to reform? And that she was the sole support of his emotional
stability and well-being? Conversely, how dependent was she on him? Did she
feel helpless and trapped in their relationship? Did both of them regard death
as preferable to separation?

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In sum, the defense failed to elicit from Marivic herself her factual
experiences and thoughts that would clearly and fully demonstrate the essential
characteristics of the syndrome.

In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in

itself establish the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner.

Evidence must still be considered in the context of self-defense. Settled

in our jurisprudence is the rule that the one who resorts to self-defense must
face a real threat on one's life; and the peril sought to be avoided must be
imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic
herself, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of
Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw
from his violent behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During that
time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the
imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in
a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety. g episodes) prior
to the defendant's use of deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger.66 Considering
such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense may be
appreciated.

We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not

warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can be no self-
defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the victim. Thus, Marivic's
killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The Supreme Court thus convicted Marivic Genosa of parricide but
appreciated in her favor several mitigating circumstances: (i) her condition was
analogous to an illness which diminished her exercise of her will power without
depriving her of her consciousness pursuant to paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article
13 of the Revised Penal Code; and (ii) having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to naturally produce passion and obfuscation.

With two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, she

is entitled to a lowering of her penalty by a degree in view of the presence of a
privileged mitigating circumstance.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Genosa and Rep. Act No. 9262
While People v. Genosa, which was decided in January 2004,
required the requisites of self defense for one to invoke the
battered woman syndrome as a defense, Rep. Act No. 9262,
which was subsequently enacted in March 2004, expressly
provided that victim-survivors suffering from BWS do not incur
criminal and civil liability ”notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements of the justifying circumstance of self defense under
the Revised Penal Code”. [Rep. Act No. 9262, sec. 26]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting
circumstances

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
It is worthy to note that the basic reason behind the
enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12
of the Revised Penal Code is the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused. [Guevarra v. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, 26
January 1989]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Effects of exempting circumstances
A crime is committed but there is no criminal liability as the
act is not voluntary, the actor did not act with freedom of action,
intelligence or intent or was not negligent.

There is generally civil liability, except for paragraphs 4 and 7

of, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
1. Imbecile or insane, unless the latter acted under a lucid interval
2. A person fifteen years or under
3. A person over fifteen and under eighteen years, unless he acted
with discernment
4. Accident
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force
6. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear
7. Prevented due to lawful or insuperable cause

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
1. Imbecility and Insanity

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Imbecility and insanity
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal liability an
imbecile or an insane person unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
According to the dictionary, imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency
while an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers from a
mental disorder. [People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 (1980)]

An imbecile is exempt at all times, while an insane person is exempt

unless he acted during a lucid interval.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Criterion for imbecility and insanity
What should be the criterion for insanity or imbecility?

We have adopted the rule that in order that a person could be regarded
as an imbecile within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, he
must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will
at the time of committing the crime.

In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there

must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or
that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his
mental faculties does not exclude imputability. [People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325
(1980)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Imbecile
An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code, is one who must be deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the
crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and
seven years of age. [People v. Nunez, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, 23 July 1997]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Insanity
Insanity has been defined as "a manifestation in language or conduct of
disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or
disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized
by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory or of the
intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition." [People v. Ambal, 100
SCRA 325 (1980), citing Section 1039, Revised Administrative Code]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Insanity as a defense
Insanity is one of the exempting circumstances enumerated in Article 12
of the Revised Penal Code.

The defense of insanity is thus in the nature of a confession or

avoidance. The defendant who asserts it is, in effect, admitting to the
commission of the crime. Consequently, the burden of proof shifts to
defendant, who must prove his defense with clear and convincing evidence.
[People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114, 29 November 2017]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 What needs to be proven in
insanity as a defense?
Thus, for the defense of insanity to prosper, two (2) elements
must concur: (1) that defendant's insanity constitutes a complete
deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and (2) that
such insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the
commission of the crime. [People v. Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114, 29
November 2017]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Proof required
Insanity is a defense by way of confession and avoidance and must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt when the commission of a crime is
established. Sanity is presumed and it is the burden of the defendant to prove
insanity when he interposes such defense, and when the defense of insanity is
not made out beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction follows. In other words.
Proof of insanity at the time of committing the criminal act should be clear
and satisfactory in order to acquit the accused on the ground of insanity.
[People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87 (1937)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Insanity must be present at the time of the
commission of the crime
Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of
reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of
the crime. A defendant in a criminal case who relies on the defense of mental
incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of insanity at the very
moment when the crime was committed. Only when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should
the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity and, in
the absence of proof to the contrary, every person is presumed to
be of sound mind. Accordingly, one who pleads the exempting
circumstance of insanity has the burden of proving it. Failing this,
one will be presumed to be sane when the crime was committed.
[People v. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Nuñez
G.R. Nos. 112429-30, 23 July 1997
Accused Rodolfo Cayetano, with co-accused Michael Nuñez and Ismael
Santos were charged with the crimes of Kidnapping for Ransom and Kidnapping with
Murder. Accused Nuñez persuaded victim Joseph Rivera and his classmate, Neil
Patrick Quillosa, to go with him. Both victims were tied and blindfolded despite their
resistance. The accused Nuñez then played a tape demanding three million pesos in
five hundred and one thousand peso bills from the parents of both Rivera and
Quillosa in exchange for their release. Accused Nuñez dragged Neil by the neck
towards the middle of the river and left him there to drown while accused Cayetano
stood guard over Rivera.
While accused Cayetano was busy cutting grass near the river, Rivera and
called up his grandmother. Thereupon, he was fetched by his grandmother and with
his father, they proceeded to the Malabon Police Station and reported the
kidnapping.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Both accused were convicted.

In his appeal, accused Cayetano claimed that he should be exempted

from criminal liability because he possesses a very low level of intelligence
and indicated a mental age of between six (6) to ten (10) years of age.

The Supreme Court found no merit in this claim.

Imbecility, one of the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the

Revised Penal Code, is defined as feeblemindedness or a mental condition
approaching that of one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and
dotage. An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12, is one who must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time
of committing the crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental
development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of
age.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Accused Cayetano’s act of cutting grass rather than guarding his victim
could hardly be indicative of imbecility. Rather, it may be considered as
negligence but definitely not childishness or even that of one completely
deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will. In fact, accused-
appellant admitted on cross-examination that he can tell what is right and
what is wrong. Assuming arguendo that accused-appellant is an imbecile or a
feebleminded person, in the case of People v. Formigones, it was held that
feeblemindedness is not exempting, because the offender could distinguish
right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane cannot. In any case, Article 800 of
the Civil Code provides that "the law presumes that every person is of sound
mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary." The allegation of insanity or
imbecility must be clearly proved. Moreover, the law presumes all acts to be
voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were executed unconsciously.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Bonoan
64 Phil. 87 (1937)
In the morning of December 12, 1934, the accused Celestino Bonoan met the
now deceased Carlos Guison on Avenida Rizal near a barbershop close to Tom's
Dixie Kitchen. Francisco Beech, who was at the time in the barbershop, heard the
accused say in Tagalog, "I will kill you." Beech turned around and saw the accused
withdrawing his right hand, which held a knife, from the side of Guison who said,
also in Tagalog, "I will pay you", but Bonoan replied saying that he would kill him and
then stabbed Guison thrice on the left side. The assault was witnessed by policeman
Damaso Arnoco who rushed to the scene and arrested Bonoan and took possession
of the knife. Guison was taken to the Philippine General Hospital where he died two
days later.
Accused was charged of murder. The lower court found the accused guilty and
sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The accused set up the defense of insanity. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment
and held that defendant-appellant was demented at the time he perpetrated the serious
offense charged in the information and that consequently he is exempt from criminal liability.
In the Philippines, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant committed the crime, but insanity is presumed, and ". . . when a
defendant in a criminal case interposes the defense of mental incapacity, the burden of
establishing that fact rests upon him. . . ." (U. S. vs. Martinez [1916], 34 Phil., 305, 308, 309;
U. S. vs. Bascos, supra.)
In order to ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible
to receive evidence of the condition of his mind a reasonable period both before and after
that time. Direct testimony is not required (Wharton, Criminal Evidence, p. 684; State vs.
Wright, 134 Mo., 404; 35 S. W., 1145; State vs. Simms, 68 Mo., 305; Rinkard vs. State, 157
Ind., 534; 62 N. E., 14; People vs. Tripler, I Wheeler, Crim. Cas., 48), nor are specific acts of
derangement essential (People vs. Tripler, supra) to established insanity as a defense. Mind
can only be known by outward acts. Thereby, we read the thoughts, the motives and
emotions of a person and come to determine whether his acts conform to the practice of
people of sound mind. To prove insanity, therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and
convincing, suffice (People vs. Bascos [1922], 44 Phil., 204).

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Ambal
100 SCRA 325 (1980)
In the morning of January 20, 1977, the barangay captain found Felicula Vicente-
Ambal, 48, mortally wounded, with seven incised wounds in different parts of her body. She
was placed in an improvised hammock and brought to the hospital where she died forty
minutes after arrival thereat.
On that same morning, accused Honorato Ambal, husband of Felicula, went to the
house of the barangay captain and informed the latter's spouse that he (Honorato) had killed
his wife Feling. After making that oral confession, accused took a pedicab, went to the
municipal hall and surrendered to a policeman, also confessing to the latter that he had killed
his wife.
The incident stemmed from a quarrel induced by Felicula's failure to buy medicine for
the accused who was afflicted with influenza. The two engaged in a heated alteration. Felicula
told her husband that it would be better if he were dead ("Mas maayo ka pang mamatay"),
which infuriated Ambal and impelled him to attack his wife.
The accused was charged with parricide. He set up the defense of insanity.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The trial court convicted him of the crime concluded from Ambal's
behavior immediately after the incident that he was not insane and that he
acted like a normal human being.
In agreeing with the trial court, the SC held that courts should be careful
to distinguish insanity in law from passion or eccentricity, mental weakness or
mere depression resulting from physical ailment. The State should guard
against sane murderers escaping punishment through a general plea of
insanity. (People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87, 94.)
Insanity has been defined as "a manifestation in language or conduct of
disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or
disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized
by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory or of the
intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition" (Sec. 1039,
Revised Administrative Code).

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there
must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or
that the accused acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his
mental faculties does not exclude imputability.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Robiños
G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002

Accused Melecio Robiños was convicted with the complex

crime of parricide with unintentional abortion after he stabbed his
then pregnant wife, Lorenza Robinos, killing her and their unborn
child.

Accused set up the defense of insanity. The SC rejected the

defense but modified the judgment by reducing his sentence to
reclusion perpetua.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of
reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of
the crime. A defendant in a criminal case who relies on the defense of mental
incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of insanity at the very
moment when the crime was committed. Only when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should
the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered. When insanity is
alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal responsibility, the evidence
must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very
moment of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the
commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted.
The presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity and, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, every person is presumed to be of sound mind.
Accordingly, one who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity has the
burden of proving it. Failing this, one will be presumed to be sane when the
crime was committed.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 People v. Taneo
58 Phil 255 (1933)
Potenciano Taneo, while sleeping, attacked and killed his
wife. He was prosecuted and convicted of parricide by the trial
court but the Supreme Court reversed as he acted while in a
dream and his acts were not voluntary. He was ordered confined
in a government asylum.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
2. A person fifteen years or under
3. A person over fifteen and under eighteen
years, unless he acted with discernment

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Child in conflict with law (CICL) who are exempt
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 Republic Act
No. 9344.

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.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not

include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance
with existing laws. [Rep. Act No. 9344, sec. 6]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 CICL who are criminally liable
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
who acted with discernment shall be subjected to diversion program [Rep. Act
No. 9344, sec. 22 and 23] and, if unsuccessful, shall be accorded automatic
suspended sentence [Rep. Act No. 9344, sec. 38]. If the child is not
rehabilitated during the suspended sentence, he will be returned to the court
which shall render judgment, giving the minor a privileged mitigating
circumstance under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code and allowing him to
serve his sentence before an agricultural camps or training facilities [Rep. Act
No. 9344, sec. 51].

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 When does one become 15 years old?
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age
on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her
birthdate. [Rep. Act No. 9344, sec. 6]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Discernment
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from
criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who
commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong. [People v. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580 (1939)]

Discernment is more than the mere understanding between right and

wrong. Rather it means the mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act. [People v. Navarro, 51 O.G. 4062 (1955)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 CICL presumed no discernment
Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of
age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony.
The law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and penalized
by a special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age
in order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the
exemption is that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a
crime – the capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from what is right or
to determine the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense in which the term is
used in moral wrong. However, such presumption is rebuttable. For a minor at
such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with
discernment, meaning that he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.
[Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116 (2005)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Doqueña
68 Phil. 580 (1939)
Accused Valentin Doqueña, a minor, was charged and convicted with
the crime of homicide for killing Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast
with a knife. On the day the crime was committed, accused was thirteen
years, nine months and five days old.

The counsel for the accused claimed that the trial court erred in ruling
that accused acted with discernment and in not dismissing the case.

The Supreme Court did not agree and affirmed the conviction.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The discernment that constitutes an exception to the
exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of
age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his
mental capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and
behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial (U.S.
vs. Maralit, 36 Phil., 155).

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Navarro
41 O.G. 4062 (1955)
Luisa Navarro was accused and found guilty of violating Executive Order
No. 447 in connection with section 12 of Republic Act No. 509, known as the
Anti-Profiteering Law, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 608 and 728.
Luisa Navarro was asked by her elder sister to look after her said sister's
store. She was then approached by Rogelio Mendoza and P. Santos who turned
out to be agents of the Price Enforcement Division of the PRISCO. Agent P.
Santos asked Luisa Navarro for the price on one tin of Hershey's cocoa, and the
latter said that it was P1.20. Santos paid the exact amount and took one tin of
Hershey's cocoa. Immediately thereafter, Luisa Navarro was arrested for selling
cocoa eleven centavos more than its ceiling price.
At the time, she was 13 years, 11 months and 3 days old.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The Supreme Court reversed the decision and ruled that Luisa did not
act with discernment.
Discernment is more than the mere understanding between right and
wrong. Rather, it means the mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15
years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.
In the instant case, facts show that she was unaware that the price of
one tin of cocoa, which she quoted at P1.20, was above the regulation price
for the same. Taking into consideration her age and education, the court did
not believe that she understood the meaning of a ceiling price or the laws and
regulations on price control.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Guevarra v. Almodovar
G.R. No. 75256, 26 January 1989
John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with his best
friend, Teodoro Almine, Jr., and three other children target shooting a bottle
cap with an air rifle. In the course of their game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet
which caused his death.

The prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint but the Ministry of

Justice ordered the filing of a case for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide. Guevarra filed a Motion to Quash the Information which stated that
Guevarra acted with “discernment”, arguing that discernment is equivalent to
intent and the charge for reckless imprudence is thus wrong. This was denied
by the trial court. On appeal with the Supreme Court, a corollary issue arose on
whether intent and discernment are the same concepts.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The Supreme Court held that the terms "intent" and "discernment"
convey two distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes
within a person, the former refers to the desired result of one’s act while the
latter relate to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence
a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the
consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person
in negligently handling an air rifle. It is not correct, therefore, to argue, as
petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen
acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may
negligently shoot his friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the same
time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence.

Intelligence embraces the concept of discernment. Discernment is thus

different from intent which is a distinct element on dolo as a means of
committing a felony.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) elements
are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence.
Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However, intelligence remains as
an essential element, hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but below
fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act
which results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must discern
the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Indeed, a minor
over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense
under Article 365 of the RPC. A reading of the said Article would reveal such
fact as it starts off with the phrase "Any person. . ." without any distinction or
exception made. Ubi lex non distinquit nec nos distinguere debemos.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Jose v. People
448 SCRA 116 (2005)
Sonny Zaraga and Alvin Jose, 13-years old, were arrested in a buy-bust
operation and charged with sale of a regulated drug. Both accused were
convicted by the trial court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed on Jose

who was a minor and is thus entitled to a penalty which is two degrees lower.

Jose appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that a minor over 9 and
under 15 years old is exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with
discernment. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he acted with
discernment. The Supreme Court acquitted Jose.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code, a minor over nine years of
age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability if charged with a felony. The
law applies even if such minor is charged with a crime defined and penalized by a
special penal law. In such case, it is the burden of the minor to prove his age in
order for him to be exempt from criminal liability. The reason for the exemption is
that a minor of such age is presumed lacking the mental element of a crime - the
capacity to know what is wrong as distinguished from what is right or to determine
the morality of human acts; wrong in the sense in which the term is used in moral
wrong. However, such presumption is rebuttable. For a minor at such an age to be
criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt,
by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that
he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstantial evidence
may include the utterances of the minor; his overt acts before, during and after the
commission of the crime relative thereto; the nature of the weapon used in the
commission of the crime; his attempt to silence a witness; his disposal of evidence
or his hiding the corpus delicti.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the petitioner, who was thirteen (13) years of age when the crime
charged was committed, acted with discernment relative to the sale of shabu to
the poseur-buyer. The only evidence of the prosecution against the petitioner is
that he was in a car with his cousin, co-accused Sonny Zarraga, when the latter
inquired from the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra, if he could afford to
buy shabu. SPO1 Guevarra replied in the affirmative, after which the accused
Zarraga called the petitioner to bring out and hand over the shabu wrapped in
plastic and white soft paper. The petitioner handed over the plastic containing
the shabu to accused Zarraga, who handed the same to the poseur-buyer

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Jacinto
G.R. No. 182239, 16 March 2011

Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the

consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should
be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case.

The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew

what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the
gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and shrewdness.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Arpon
G.R. No. 183563, 14 December 2011
Discernment is that mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and should be
determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case.

In this case, the fact that the accused-appellant acted with discernment
was satisfactorily established by the testimony of AAA, which we had already
found to be credible. Verily, AAA testified that she at first did not tell anybody
about the sexual assault she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant
because the latter told her that he would kill her mother if she did so. That the
accused-appellant had to threaten AAA in an effort to conceal his dastardly acts
only proved that he knew full well that what he did was wrong and that he was
aware of the consequences thereof.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Exempting circumstances
4. Accident

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of accident
1. A person performs a lawful act

2. With due care

3. He causes injury to another by mere accident

4. Without fault or intention of causing it [RPC, art. 12(4)

and Toledo v. People, 482 Phil. 292 (2004)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Bindoy
GR No. L-34665, 28 August 1931

Faustino Pacas tried to take away the bolo of Donato Bindoy, after the
latter insulted his wife, in a tuba wineshop. Emigdio Omamdam got near the
scene and watched Bindoy and Pacas struggling for the bolo.

In the course of the struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself

from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter’s hand towards the left behind
him with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Emigdio
Omamdam’s chest, who was then behind Bindoy. Omamdam died and trial
convicted him of homicide.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 There is no evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight between
Bindoy and Pacas. Neither is there any indication that Bindoy was aware of
Omamdam’s presence in the place. There was no disagreement or ill-feeling
between Bindoy and Omamdam, on the contrary, it appears they were nephew
and uncle, respectively, and were on good terms with each other.

Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas, and instead of wounding him, he hit
Omamdam; he was only defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was
trying to wrench away from him, and his conduct was perfectly lawful.There is
no doubt that Bindoy caused the wound which produced Omamdam’s death,
but Bindoy alleged that it was caused accidentally and without malicious intent.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Bindoy, indeed, in his effort to free himself of Pacas, who was
endeavoring to wrench his bolo from him, hit Omamdam in the chest; but, as
we have stated, there is no evidence to show that he did so deliberately and
with the intention of committing a crime. If, in his struggle with Pacas, Bindoy
had attempted to wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, had wounded
Omamdam, he would have had to answer for his act, since whoever willfully
commits a felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability, although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

In view of the evidence, Bindoy is entitled to acquittal according to

article 8, No. 8, Penal Code (accident) and the judgment appealed from is
reversed.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Tañedo
15 Phil.196 (1910)
Cecilio Tañedo hunted for wild chickens. When he saw a wild chicken,
he shot it. After he shot the chicken, he heard a human cry. When he picked
up the chicken and went near the place where he heard the noise, he saw a
wounded man, who turned out to be Feliciano Sanchez. He and his friend
Bernardino Tagampa tried to hide the body in an old well. Tañedo was charged
and convicted of murder. The Supreme Court reversed.

It is uniformly held that if life is taken by misfortune or accident while in

the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention
of doing harm, there is no criminal liability.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In this case, there is absolutely no evidence of negligence on the part of
Tañedo. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission
of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there evidence of the
intention of the accused Tañedo to cause the death of the deceased. The only
thing in the case at all suspicious upon the part of Tañedo are his concealment
and denial.

Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not

required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of evidence,

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Pomoy v. People
439 SCRA 439 (2004)
Tomas Balboa was arrested and taken to the Headquarters of the
defunct Philippine Constabulary in Sara, Iloilo. Later in the afternoon, Roweno
Pomoy, a police sergeant, took Balboa from his detention cell for tactical
interrogation at the investigation room. While they were already near the
investigation room, Balboa tried to seize the firearm of Pomoy and, both
grappled for possession of the gun. Thereafter, two shots were fired, hitting
Balboa and causing his death.

The trial court convicted Pomoy of homicide. On appeal, Pomoy raised

accident and self defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications
(re. aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position not appreciated).
Howver, the Supreme Court reversed.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Accident is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised
Penal Code. Exemption from criminal liability proceeds from a finding that the
harm to the victim was not due to the fault or negligence of the accused, but to
circumstances that could not have been foreseen or controlled. Thus, in
determining whether an “accident” attended the incident, courts must take into
account the dual standards of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or
negligence.

As determined by the Supreme Court, the threshold factual issue is

whether or not Pomoy was in control of the gun at the very moment the shots
were fired. Based on the evidence, Pomoy did not have control of the gun
during the scuffle. The deceased persistently attempted to wrest the weapon
from him, while he resolutely tried to thwart these attempts. That the hands of
both Pomoy and the victim were all over the weapon was categorically asserted
by the eyewitness.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 It is undisputed that both Pomoy and the victim grappled for the
possession of the gun. This frenzied grappling for the weapon – though brief,
having been finished in a matter of seconds – was fierce and vicious. The
eyewitness account amply illustrated the logical conclusion that could not be
dismissed: that in the course of the scuffle, the safety lock could have been
accidentally released and the shots accidentally fired.

The elements of accident are as follows: (1) the accused was at the time
performing a lawful act with due care; (2) the resulting injury was caused by
mere accident; and (3) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no
intent to cause injury.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The Supreme Court held that all these elements were present. At the
time of the incident, Pomoy was a member, specifically one of the investigators,
of the PNP. Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his duties as investigating
officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from
the latter’s cell for routine interrogation.

The participation of Pomoy in the victim’s death was limited only to acts
committed in the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer
of the law. The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the safety
lock, and the firing of the two successive shots – all of which led to the death of
the victim – were sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of
circumstances beyond the control of Pomoy. At the very least, these factual
circumstances create serious doubt on the latter’s culpability.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Pomoy cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary
precautions to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others.
As he so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun locked when he left his
house; he kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the premises of his
working area.
At no instance during his testimony did Pomoy admit to any intent to cause
injury to the deceased, much less kill him.
Pomoy advanced self-defense as an alternative. However, self-defense is
inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of accident, in which there is no
intent to kill. On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a
premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from imminent danger.
Apparently, the fatal shots in the instant case did not occur out of any conscious or
premeditated effort to overpower, maim or kill the victim for the purpose of self-
defense against any aggression; rather, they appeared to be the spontaneous and
accidental result of both parties’ attempts to possess the firearm.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Since the death of the victim was the result of an accidental firing of the
service gun of Pomoy – an exempting circumstance as defined in Article 12 of
the Revised Penal Code – a further discussion of whether the assailed acts of
the latter constituted self-defense is unnecessary.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
5. Compulsion of irresistible force

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Compulsion of irresistible force
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force

2. That the physical force must be irresistible

3. That the physical force comes from a third person

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Caballeros
4 Phil 350 (1905)
Apolonio Caballeros and Roberto Baculi were charged and convicted of
being accessories in the murder of several American school teachers by a band.
While they did not take part in the crime as principals or accomplices, they
took part in the burial of the corpses of the victims in order to conceal the
crime. The Supreme Court reversed.
As regards Roberto Baculi, although he confessed to having assisted in
the burial of the corpses, he did so because he was compelled to do so by the
murderers of the four teachers. He was corroborated by the sole eyewitness to
the crime who saw the American teachers killed and that Baculi was not a
member of the group who killed the victims. However, he was seen by the
leaders of the band who struck him with the butts of their guns and forced him
to bury the corpses.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act
by reason of irresistible force. Baculi acted, doubtless, under such
circumstances when he executed the acts which are charged against him.

As to Caballeros, there is no proof that he took any party in any way in

the execution of the crime with which he has been charged. He did not also
participate in the burial of the corpses.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
6. Impulse of uncontrollable fear

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of impulse of uncontrollable fear
1. The existence of an uncontrollable fear

2. That the fear must be real and imminent

3. The fear of an injury is greater than, or at least

equal to, that committed

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Exaltacion
3 Phil 339 (1904)
Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were charged with
rebellion for swearing allegiance to the Katipunan Society, the purpose of which
was to overthrow the US Government in the islands by force of arms. Both
accused testified that they swore and sign the corresponding documents under
compulsion, specifically under fear of death at the hands of the thieves by
whom they had been captured. The trial court convicted them but the
Supreme Court reversed.
The facts established that the accused were kidnapped by brigands who
belonged to the Contreras band and that they signed the said documents under
compulsion and while in captivity, which relieve them from all criminal liability
from the crime of rebellion of which they were charged.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempting circumstances
7. Lawful or insuperable cause

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Requisites of lawful or insuperable cause
1. The act is required by law to be done

2. The person fails to perform such act

3. The failure is due to some lawful or

insuperable cause

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Vicentillo
19 Phil 118 (1911)
Isidro Vicentillo, a municipal president, made an arrest. Since the local
justice of the peace or his auxiliary was absent in the locality, Vicentillo had to
turn over the arrested person to the justice of the peace of the adjoining
municipality, which took three days to do so because a boat ride was
necessary. He was charged and convicted for illegal and arbitrary detention.
However, the Supreme Court reversed as, based on the evidence, the arrested
man was in fact brought before a justice of the peace as soon as “practicable”
after his arrest. True, three days were expended in doing so, but it was
conclusively proven at the trial that at the time of the arrest neither the local
justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality, and to reach
the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, it was
necessary to take a long journey by boat.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 People v. Bandian
63 Phil 530 (1936)

Valentin Aguilar saw Josefina Bandian, who was then pregnant, went to
a thicket near her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature. A few
minutes later, he against saw her emerge from the thicket with her clothes
stained with blood, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to
support herself. He aided her rest in her bed and observed that she was very
weak and dizzy. Later, Aguilar and another companion saw the body of a
newborn child in the thicket where Bandian had gone a few moments earlier.
When asked whether the baby was hers, Bandian said yes.
Bandian was charged and convicted of infanticide. The Supreme Court
reversed.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be
committed willfully or consciously, or at least it must be the result of a
voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. Even in cases where said crimes
are committed through mere imprudence, the person who commits them,
under said circumstance, must be in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties,
or must be conscious or his acts, if order that he may be held liable.
The evidence certainly does not show that Bandian, in causing her
child’s death in one way or the other, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did no
willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon the
baby.
Bandian could not carry the child from the thicket due to her debility or
dizziness, which causes may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute
the seventh exempting circumstances.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 She also has the benefit of the fourth exempting circumstance of
accident. The act performed by Bandian in going to the thicket to respond to
the call of nature, notwithstanding the fact that she had fever for a long time,
was perfectly lawful. If by doing so she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to
her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of
imprudence or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong
dizziness and extreme debility, she should not be blamed therefor because it all
happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law
exempts from liability any person who so acts and behaves under such
circumstances.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Absolutory causes

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Absolutory cause
An absolutory cause is present “where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed”. [People v. Talisic, G.R.
No. 97961, 5 September 1997, citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code, Volume I, 13th Edition, 1993, pp. 231-232]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Absolutory cause
An absolutory cause is a circumstance which is present prior
to or simultaneously with the offense by reason of which the
accused who acts with criminal intent, freedom and intelligence
does not incur criminal liability for an act that constitutes a crime.
[Intestate Estate of Manolita vda. Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11
February 2010, citing Regalado, Florenz, Criminal Law Conspectus, Third
Edition, 61-62 (2007)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Absolutory causes
1. The spontaneous desistance of the person who
commenced the commission of a felony before he could perform
all acts of execution [RPC, art. 6(3)]

2. Frustrated and attempted light felonies are not

punishable, except in crimes against persons and property [RPC, art.
7]

3. Accessories are not criminally liable in light felonies

[RPC, art. 16]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 4. Accessories who are relatives of the principal are
exempt from criminal liability [RPC, art. 20]

5. Death or serious physical injuries and other

physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
[RPC, art. 247]

6. Absolutory causes in qualified trespass to dwelling [RPC,

art. 280]

7. Exempt persons in certain crimes against property,

specifically estafa, theft or malicious mischief [RPC, art. 332]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 8. Consent or pardon in certain crimes against chastity
[RPC, art. 344]

9. Instigation

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 When light felonies are punishable
Light felonies are punishable only when they have
been consummated, with the exception of those
committed against persons or property. [RPC, art. 280]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Who are criminally liable in light felonies?
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals; and

2. Accomplices. [RPC, art. 16]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 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 within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph
1 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. [RPC, art. 20]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempt accessories under Article 20, RPC
1. Spouses
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and
sisters
5. Relatives by affinity within the same degrees

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances
1. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro [RPC, art. 247]

2. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any kind, he shall be exempt
from punishment [RPC, art. 247]

3. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents

with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents [RPC, art. 247]
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Article 247, RPC does not define an offense
The above-quoted article, far from defining a felony, merely provides or
grants a privilege or benefit - amounting practically to an exemption from an
adequate punishment - to a legally married person or parent who shall
surprise his spouse or daughter in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another, and shall kill any or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Thus, in case of death or serious physical injuries, considering the enormous
provocation and his righteous indignation, the accused - who would otherwise
be criminally liable for the crime of homicide, parricide, murder, or serious
physical injury, as the case may be - is punished only with destierro. This
penalty is mere banishment and, as held in a case, is intended more for the
protection of the accused than a punishment.

And where physical injuries other than serious are inflicted, the offender
is exempted from punishment. [People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Abarca
153 SCRA 735 (1987)

Francisco Abarca caught his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of
sexual intercourse. Koh got his revolver and Abarca ran away. He looked for a
firearm and found a M-16 rifle and went back to his house but he did not find
his wife and her paramour. He went to the hangout of Koh and found him
playing mahjong. He shot him with the M-16 rifle three times and killed him.
Two other persons were hit and physically injured.

Abarca was charged and convicted by the trial court of complex crime
of murder with double frustrated murder.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The Supreme Court held that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code
applies in this case.

There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her
paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of
which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article
247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case. The trial court,
in convicting Abarca of murder, therefore erred.

Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the
time Abarca discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and
the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Abarca.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of
them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter.
It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of
infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing
must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

Additionally, the Supreme Court held that Article 247 of the RPC does
not define an offense. Destierro is imposed more as a protection to the accused
rather than as a punishment.

However, the Supreme Court found him guilty of simple imprudence or

negligence resulting in less serious physical injuries with regard to the injuries
caused to the two other persons.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Article 247, RPC is an absolutory cause
An absolutory cause is present "where the act committed is a
crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed." Article 247 is an example of an absolutory
cause. [People v. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, 5 September 1997]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Talisic
G.R. No. 97961, 5 September 1997
Jimmy Talisic was charged with parricide for killing his wife. He
interposed the defense that he killed his wife as he saw a man on top of her
after fetching water from the well to get water.

The Supreme Court explained that an absolutory cause is present

"where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed." Article 247 is an example of an
absolutory cause. To invoke this defense, the following must be proved:

1. That a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his spouse (or his
daughter, under 18 years of age and living with him), in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of
them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.

3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or
daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.

The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the trial court that Talisic
failed to prove that he caught the wife in sexual intercourse with another man
or in flagrante delicto. It was ridiculous for him to say that his wife engaged in
sexual infidelity while he was just nearby fetching water from the well.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Elements of Article 247, RPC
1. A legally married person surprises his/her spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person

2. He/She kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately

thereafter

3. He/She has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his/her spouse (or
daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse [People v. Oyanib, G.R. Nos. 130634-35, 12 March 2001]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Legally married person and
“another person”
Article 247, RPC applies only to legally married persons as well as to
parents with respect to their minors daughters who are living with them

While Article 247, RPC states that the innocent spouse catches the guilty
spouse committing sexual intercourse with “another person”, which is open to
the interpretation that the paramour could be a male or a female, the term
“sexual intercourse” has been interpreted by some scholars as heterosexual
intercourse

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Oyanib
G.R. Nos. 130634-35, 12 March 2001

Manolito Oyanib and his wife, Tita, were separated. When Manolito
went to Tita’s place, he saw her in sexual intercourse with Jesus Esquierdo. He
killed both of them and was charged with parricide and murder.

The trial court convicted him of both crimes but the Supreme Court
reversed and exonerated him as all the elements of death under exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code were present.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Gonzales
69 Phil 66 (1939)
Marciano Gonzales was charged with parricide. He invoked Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code. He allegedly caught his wife having sex with
another man around midday but he forgave her. However, later that day, he
saw them again having sex near the toilet. He unsuccessfully chased the man
and when he returned to the house he killed his wife.

The Supreme Court held Article 247 requires that the spouse surprise
the husband or the wife in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person. Here, Gonzales did not surprise his wife in the very act or
carnal intercourse, but after the act, if any such there was, because from the
fact that she was rising up and the man was buttoning his drawers, it does not
necessarily follow that a man and a woman had committed the carnal act.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 In the act or immediately thereafter
Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time
Francisco Abarca discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and
the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Abarca. The Revised Penal Code, in
requiring that the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately"
after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should
commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his
spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by
external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.
[People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Absolutory causes in qualified trespass
to dwelling
1. A person who enters the dwelling for the purpose of preventing some
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person

2. A person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice

3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while
the same are open [RPC, art. 280]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Article 332, RPC is an absolutory cause
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides for an absolutory cause
in the crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the
responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from criminal
liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. [Intestate Estate of
Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Exempt persons in certain crimes against
property
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in 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

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

together [RPC, art. 332]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Crimes covered by exemption
1. Theft

2. Swindling

3. Malicious mischief [RPC, art. 332]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Effect of exemption
1. The persons involved are not criminally liable, but they are still
civilly liable

2. The exemption does not apply to strangers participating in the

commission of the crime [RPC, art. 332]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Does the term “spouse” include
common-law partners?
There is a view that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code, the term "spouse" embraces common law relation for
purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by
spouses. The Penal Code article, it is said, makes no distinction
between a couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a
sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and wife de
facto. [Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, 22 April 2014]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De
Carungcong v. People
G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010
Two issues were tackled by the Supreme Court in this case in relation to
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code:

1. Is the relationship by affinity created between the husband and

the blood relatives of his wife (as well as between the wife and the blood
relatives of her husband) dissolved by the death of one spouse, thus ending the
marriage which created such relationship by affinity?

2. Does the beneficial application of Article 332 cover the complex

crime of estafa thru falsification?

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed
administratrix of the Intestate Estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales
vda. de Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-
law, William Sato, a Japanese national. At the time the complaint was filed,
Sato’s wife, Zenaida, was already dead; she thus predeceased her mother.

William Sato was able to convince his mother-in-law to sign a Special

Power of Attorney which allowed him, through her daughter, to sell certain
Tagaytay properties although he represented this document pertained to her
taxes.

While the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed the
complaint, the Department of Justice reversed the dismissal which led to the
filing of an Information for estafa under Article 315(3)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Sato moved for the quashal of the Information, claiming that under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the person allegedly
defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-in-law, was an
exempting circumstance.

The trial prosecutor opposed the motion contending that the death of
the wife of the accused severed the relationship of affinity between accused
and his mother-in-law. Therefore, the mantle of protection provided to the
accused by the relationship is no longer obtaining.

The trial court dismissed granted the motion and ordered the dismissal
of the case, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court affirmed the dismissal.

The Supreme Court reversed, but due to a different ground.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The resolution of this case rests on the interpretation of Article 332 of
the Revised Penal Code. In particular, it calls for the determination of the
following: (1) the effect of death on the relationship by affinity created between
a surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse and (2) the
extent of the coverage of Article 332.

Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa
(or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender
to civil liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his relationship
to the offended party.

In connection with the relatives mentioned in the first paragraph, it has

been held that included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, stepparents and
adopted children.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who
commits malicious mischief against his stepson; by the stepmother who
commits theft against her stepson; by the stepfather who steals something from
his stepson; by the grandson who steals from his grandfather; by the accused
who swindles his sister-in-law living with him; and by the son who steals a ring
from his mother.

Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the
other spouse. It is a relationship by marriage ora familial relation resulting from
marriage. It is a fictive kinship, a fiction created by law in connection with the
institution of marriage and family relations.

If marriage gives rise to one’s relationship by affinity to the blood

relatives of one’s spouse, does the extinguishment of marriage by the death of
the spouse dissolve the relationship by affinity?

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Philippine jurisprudence has no previous encounter with the issue that
confronts us in this case. In contrast, in the American legal system, there are
two views on the subject. As one Filipino author observed:

In case a marriage is terminated by the death of one of the spouses,

there are conflicting views. There are some who believe that relationship by
affinity is not terminated whether there are children or not in the marriage.
However, the better view supported by most judicial authorities in other
jurisdictions is that, if the spouses have no living issues or children and one of
the spouses dies, the relationship by affinity is dissolved. It follows the rule that
relationship by affinity ceases with the dissolution of the marriage which
produces it. On the other hand, the relationship by affinity is continued despite
the death of one of the spouses where there are living issues or children of the
marriage "in whose veins the blood of the parties are commingled, since the
relationship of affinity was continued through the medium of the issue of the
marriage“.
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by
affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by death or
divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity between the parties.
Under this view, the relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent
with the marriage that produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily
determined by the marriage that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the
marriage subsists, such that the death of a spouse ipso facto ends the
relationship by affinity of the surviving spouse to the deceased spouse’s blood
relatives.

The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity

continues even after the death of one spouse when there is a surviving issue.
The rationale is that the relationship is preserved because of the living issue of
the marriage in whose veins the blood of both parties is commingled.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that
relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse,
regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not. Under this view,
the relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage
that produced it as a result of the death of one of the parties to the said
marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have indicated an intent to
benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the "tie of affinity" between these people and
their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the death
of one of the married parties.

After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two
views, we hold that the second view is more consistent with the language and
spirit of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in cases of jury
disqualification and incest. On the other hand, the continuing affinity view has
been applied in the interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or
in-laws. Since the purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332(1) is meant to
be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under the said
provision, the continuing affinity view is more appropriate.

Second, the language of Article 332(1) which speaks of "relatives by

affinity in the same line" is couched in general language. The legislative intent to
make no distinction between the spouse of one’s living child and the surviving
spouse of one’s deceased child (in case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with
respect to his or her parents-in-law) can be drawn from Article 332(1) of the
Revised Penal Code without doing violence to its language.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Third, the Constitution declares that the protection and strengthening of
the family as a basic autonomous social institution are policies of the State and
that it is the duty of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family. Congress
has also affirmed as a State and national policy that courts shall preserve the
solidarity of the family. In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve
family harmony and obviate scandal. The view that relationship by affinity is not
affected by the death of one of the parties to the marriage that created it is
more in accord with family solidarity and harmony.

Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting

criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo.
When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless
and until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Intimately related to
the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Thus, for purposes of Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hold
that the relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the
blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the
marriage which created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying
circumstance of defense of one’s relatives under Article 11[2] of the Revised
Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave
offense committed against one’s relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code
and the absolutory cause of relationship in favor of accessories under Article 20
also of the same Code.)

However, the Supreme Court clarified that the absolutory cause under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones
the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies
mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the
provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes
mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft
through falsification or estafa through falsification.

The the Information against Sato charges him with estafa. However, the
real nature of the offense is determined by the facts alleged in the Information,
not by the designation of the offense. What controls is not the title of the
Information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the
Information. A reading of the facts alleged in the Information reveals that Sato is
being charged not with simple estafa but with the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public documents.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Since the crime with which Sato was charged was not simple estafa but
the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, Sato
cannot avail himself of the absolutory cause provided under Article 332 of the
Revised Penal Code in his favor.

The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific

crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not
affected by the absolutory cause provided by the said provision. To apply the
absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the
component crimes of a complex crime for the purpose of negating the
existence of that complex crime is to unduly expand the scope of Article 332.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 In other words, to apply Article 332 to the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public document would be to mistakenly treat the crime
of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in
that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment as separate charges of
estafa and falsification of public document, not as a single charge for the single
(complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public document.

Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right
to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to
property committed by the offender against certain family members as a private
matter and therefore subject only to civil liability.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is
achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the
public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents.
For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the property right
of a family relation but a paramount public interest.

The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate

scandal. Thus, the action provided under the said provision simply concerns the
private relations of the parties as family members and is limited to the civil
aspect between the offender and the offended party.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 When estafa is committed through falsification of a public document,
however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond
the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves.
Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public interest in
the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights of a
family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory
cause under Article 332.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Instigation is an absolutory cause
but not entrapment
Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the
accused. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an
absolutory cause. [People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Instigation vs Entrapment
While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for
the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while
instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned
and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable,
the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilitates
for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was
done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that
detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its
commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of
a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a
course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if
the offense was committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the
detective. [People v. Lua Chu, 56 Phil. 44 (1931)]
Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica
 Instigation
In instigation wherein, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the
instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged
in order to prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the would-be
accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-
principal. In instigation, it was not and could not have been committed were
it not for the instigation by the peace officer. [People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698,
29 December 1998]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Entrapment
Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose
of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Oftentimes it is the only effective way
of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. In
entrapment the idea to commit the crime originated from the accused.
Nobody induces or prods him into committing the offense. A criminal is
caught committing the act by ways and means devised by peace officers.
[People v. Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, 29 December 1988]

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Lua Chu
56 Phil. 44 (1931)

Uy Se Tieng and Lua Chu were charged and convicted of illegal

importation of opium in Cebu. The SC affirmed the conviction and held that
this was a case of entrapment and not of instigation. It is true that customs
officer Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited
drug, but that was after the accused had already planned its importation and
ordered said drug, leaving only its introduction into the country through the
Cebu customhouse to be managed, and he did not do so to help them carry
their plan to a successful issue, but rather to assure the seizure of the imported
drug and the arrest of the smugglers.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 United States v. Phelps
16 Phil. 440 (1910)

James Phelps was charged and convicted of smoking opium after having
been induced by a BIR employee, Homer Smith, to help him find a
Chinaman who can provide them opium and a place to smoke it. Phelps
helped find the Chinaman after being repeatedly induced by Smith. The
Supreme Court held that this was a case of instigation which led to the
acquittal of Phelps.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 People v. Doria
G.R. No. 125299, 22 January 1999

Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged and convicted of

selling marijuana in a drug buy-bust operation. SC affirmed, but Gaddao was
acquitted as the search and arrest conducted against her was declared illegal.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as a
way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense.
Entrapment has received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard
to constitutional and legal safeguards. In this case, the Supreme Court
discussed the two tests to determine whether the act constitutes instigation or
entrapment.

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica

 Two tests in entrapment
1. Subjective or origin of intent test, where the focus of the inquiry is the
accused’s predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind
and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents

2. Objective test, where the court considers the nature of the police activity
involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on
the inducements made by police agents, on police conduct, not on the
accused and his predisposition to commit the crime

Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability Part I Dan P. Calica