RPC Art 12

Exempting circumstances
Definition
(non imputability) are those grounds for exception from punishment
There is wanting the agent of the crime any conditions which make the act
Voluntary
Negligent
Basis
Complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused
Under RPC a person must act with malice of negligence to be criminally liable
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the following are exempt from criminal
liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission
of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which
case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care
of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.
A crime is committed but no criminal liability exists
No criminal liability arises by the complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute
free will or voluntariness of the act
Burden of proof belongs to the defense
An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
Based on complete absence of intelligence, no voluntary action
Imbecility
Exempt in all cases
Insanity
Not exempt if he acted in a lucid interval
One who with an advanced age but has a mental

development of children 2-7 yrs old
There is intelligence in lucid intervals

Complete deprivation of intelligence
Completely deprived of reason

Complete deprivation of will
Completely deprived of free will
Acts without discernment
Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not
enough, offender must lose consciousness of his
acts
Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony

Court shall offer his confinement in a hospital or asylums for persons afflicted
Not allowed to leave without court permission
Court has NO POWER to permit the insane to leave without opinion of the Director of
Health
People are presumed normal and sane
Evidence needed to overthrow presumption of sanity
Evidence of condition before and after the crime
Direct testimony not required, circumstantial evidence if clear will suffice
Insanity
At the commission of the felony
Exempt from criminal liability
At the time of the trial

Trial will be suspended until the mental capacity
of the accused is restored to afford him a fair trial
Evidence of insanity
Must refer to the time preceding the act or at the very moment of its execution
If only occasional or intermittent in nature, the presumption of continuance does not arise
When it is shown accused had lucid intervals, it will be presumed the offense committed was in
one of them
A person adjudged to be insane is presumed to continue being insane
Defense of insanity is not credible even if you have a mental condition as long as you can discern right
from wrong
Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity
During psychosis a person has no control over his acts
Kleptomania
Only a mitigating circumstance if he cannot discern his acts
Epilepsy
May be covered be insanity
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility
A feebleminded person can distinguish right from wrong
Other cases of lack of intelligence
Committing a crime while in a dream (no intent)
Somnambulism or sleepwalking
Hypnotism (debatable)
A person under nine years of age
Based on absence of intelligence
9 yrs or less
There is absolute irresponsibility in such cases
Presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, absolute presumption
Age is computed up to the time of commission of crime
Senility (second childhood) is only mitigating
Absolute irresponsibility
Conditional responsibility
Full responsibility
Mitigated responsibility
9 and below
9-15 yrs
18 (adolescence) 70 (maturity)
9-15 with discernment, 15 -18 yrs, >70 yrs
A person over nine years of age and under 15, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art 80 of this code
Based on complete absence of intelligence
It is presumed the minor under 15 acted without discernment
Discernment
Mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of ones unlawful act
Discernment
moral significance person ascribes to the act
Intent
Desired act
Discernment may be shown by

1. Manner of committing the crime
Example: minor committed a crime at nighttime to avoid detection
2. Conduct of offender
Example: when one has perverted character and reflected satisfaction and elation upon
accomplishment of his criminal
Particular facts which led the court officer to believe his age must be stated for the record
When a minor is adjudged criminally irresponsible, it is the duty of the court to commit him to custody
of his family or some institution
Allegation of intent to kill is sufficient allegation of discernment
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it.
Based on lack of negligence and intent, a person does not commit an intentional felony or a
culpable felony
Elements
1.
2.
3.
4.
A person performing a lawful act

With due care
Causes injury to another by mere accident
Without fault or intention of causing it
Person must be performing a lawful act

Example: firing your weapon in self defense indiscriminately in a thickly populated area is
penalized by the RPC therefore not a lawful act
Person performing a lawful act must do so with due case, without fault or negligence
Examples of accident
The accused while hunting shot a chicken, the bullet ricocheted and struck someone else, no
liability since the lawful act was executed with due care, mere misfortune
A driver on the road with moderate speed and on the proper side hit a pedestrian who crossed
unexpectedly, no liability, physically impossible to avoid hitting him
Accident
Happens outside the sway or our will, although it comes through our acts, it lies beyond our
humanly foreseeable consequences
If consequences were foreseeable it would be negligence
Accident presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Presupposes that a person in compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime
Basis is the absence of freedom
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person
For a force to become irresistible it must produce such an effect that in spite of all resistance to
reduces him to a mere instrument incapable of committing a crime
No compulsion of irresistible force
The pretension of an accused that he was threatened with a gun is not credible when he himself
was armed with a rifle
Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force
Irresistible force can never consist of impulse, passion or obfuscation
Nature of force required
Irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts against his will
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or of bodily harm is act is done
A threat of future injury is not enough
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by
means of intimidation or threat NOT force or violence
Based on complete absence if freedom
an act done by me against my will is not my act
Elements:
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to that which he is
required to commit
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed
to it
Requisites:
a. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
b. The fear must be real and imminent
c. The fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed
Nature o9f duress as a valid defense
Should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life or limb and should not be
speculative, fanciful or remote fear
The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self defense
No opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat
There should be no opportunities for leaving
In treason
Nothing will execute that act of joining an enemy but the fear of immediate death
Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not uncontrollable fear
Mere fear to disobey or refute orders in the absence of actual physical or moral compulsion to
act is not sufficient to exempt accused from criminal liability
Irresistible force
Uncontrollable fear
Uses violence or physical force
Employs intimidation or threat
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
cause
Basis is he acts without intent
Elements:
1. Act required by law to be done
2. That a person fails to perform such act
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause
Lawful cause - Example:

A priest cannot reveal information of conspiracy against the government since the confession
made to him was in his official capacity
Insuperable cause- Example:
A municipal president detained an offended party for 3 days because the nearest justice of the
peace is 3 days journey away
A mother who at the time of childbirth was overcome by severe dizziness and left the child
behind, the child died, it was physically impossible for her to take home the child
In all exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent
Justifying circumstances
Does not commit any crime in the eyes of the
law, no unlawful act
Act is both just and lawful
There is a crime but no criminal
Act is not justified, nit eh actor is not criminally
liable
Absolutory causes
Where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment no penalty
imposed
Examples:
Justifying circumstances
Art 247
Art 280
Accessories who are exempt
Art 332
Spontaneous desistance
Art 344
Art 124
Instigation is an absolutory cause

One who was instigated to commit a crime is not criminally liable
Must be made by public officers or private detectives
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause

Entrapment
Ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal
plan
Means originates from the mind of the
criminal
Instigation
Induces the would be accused to the
commission of the offense, he becomes a co
principal
It is the law enforcer that conceives the
commission of the crime
There is no instigation or entrapment when the violation of the law is simply discovered
Assurance of immunity by a public officer does not exempt a person from criminal liability

RPC Art 12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPC Art 12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exempting circumstances

One who with an advanced age but has a mental

There is intelligence in lucid intervals

Completely deprived of reason

Procedure when the imbecile or the insane committed a felony

At the time of the trial

Discernment may be shown by

A person performing a lawful act

Person must be performing a lawful act

Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Uses violence or physical force

Employs intimidation or threat

Lawful cause - Example:

Accessories who are exempt

Instigation is an absolutory cause

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause

You might also like