ARTICLE 13

Okay. All righty class. So today we're going to be we're going to be discussing article 13 mitigating circumstances. I hope everybody will really be watching this video lecture because our midterm exam is fast approaching.

Okay. So now in discussing mitigating circumstance, let us first um differentiate this circumstance from the previous two circumstances that we had already talked about. So mitigating circumstances actually different from the uh previous circumstances we talked about because the first two circumstances, those first two circumstances are actually not going to make you liable of what your um what you did, you will be justified. So that means your action was actually lawful. There was no law that was violated. And for the um second circumstance, you will be excused. You're exempted from the criminal liability because of some circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime. But in mitigating circumstance, there is still a criminal liability that will be imputed to the offender. Soap. But because again it's a mitig it's mitigating that means the penalty will be lesser, will be uh decreased, it will be lowered and how so we will be finding out.

So first we are going to discuss the first paragraph or provision. Let me read first. No, those mentioned in the preceding chapter when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. So that means class there are presence of incomplete requisites of justifying and exempting circumstances. So there are other elements that are present, but they're not complete. So of course, if they are not complete, they're not going to be falling either under justifying or exempting because you need to have them complete before you can claim that it's justifying or an exempting circumstance. You need to have all those elements present. So if they're not present, then they are going to be falling under mitigating circumstance. So for mitigating circumstance paragraph number one, we have here what we call incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of relatives, and then incomplete defense of stranger. So we have to take note of the fact that article 13 paragraph number one, two and three can only be possible if there is an unlawful aggression. So what is only allowed to be not in attendance here in order for it to become mitigating circumstance are the other two elements which are the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack and the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself to the relatives or the stranger. So if there is no unlawful aggression, cuz why are you defending yourself if nobody's attacking you? So that is actually the point of this um discussion on the first um example defend. No. So really mo if nobody's really attacking you or the aggression is not actually unlawful, it is lawful because as we have previously discussed, we have found out that there are lawful aggressions. So it cannot be mitigating circumstance if the one that's not in attendance is the unlawful aggression. So always remember that um for it to be an incomplete self-defense or defense of relatives or and defense of stranger, then the other two elements, reasonable necessity and then the lack of sufficient provocation.

Okay. And we also have um incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury. So there are three elements also under this uh paragraph. So the first element should always be present also. The other two langu present. If the first element is not in attendance, why are you trying or what are you trying to avoid? If it's not actually existing. First element is that the uh evil or injury that you are avoiding actually exists. So if it's not existing, what are you trying to avoid? So here second and third elements lang um pen wala either of that um two elements that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it. So you know uh lesser pala lesser um injury that you are fearing from what you have actually done. So um property. So in this case, so paragraph number four under article 11. So mitigating circumstance and the third one that there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. So umang um options that you can actually choose to do. Ways to actually avoid the evil or the injury. So fall under mitigating circumstance and then we also have here incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty. So there are two elements that should be present justifying circumstance. So if one of the two requisites no ka then it could be a mitigating circumstance l and then incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an order. So for example, you just you are a subordinate of somebody and then your superior has told you to commit or to do an action, but the action is actually unlawful, but still you um did it. You committed it. So in this case um action should be for some lawful purpose and you committed it in a lawful way. Then absent elements, then it um will just fall as mitigating circumstance. Incomplete elements now in attendance or present. And we also have the incomplete circumstance of minority over 15 and under 18 years of age and also the seniority in age. No. Um da we have already discussed that if um the minor is over 15 and under 18 years old and he did not uh he did act with discernment, then he's not going to be exempted from the criminal liability, but because of his age, his liability will be lowered or will be lesser. The best example for that one will be the perpetrators for the Magwad sibling killing because of their age, they got I think lesser penalty.

So next would also be the incomplete exempting circumstance of accident. So when we when there is there an accident if the person is performing a lawful act tapos it's with due care, so he's very careful in committing or in performing the action, he causes an injury to another by mere accident, so that means it was just out of his control there and there is without fault or intention of causing it. So there was no malice and there was also negligence or imprudence on the part of the perpetrator. So here if you committed um if you if the I mean if the second requisite which is with due care is um not present. So that means he performed the act without being careful. And also the first part of the fourth requisite requisite is also absent. So that means without fault. So that means he performed the action with fault. So there could be imprudence or negligence on the part of the perpetrator. Then what happens here? K what? Um criminal negligence. So it will fall under article 365 which fun again punishes felony by um negligence or imprud imprudence or the what we call culpable felony, but you what will happen is the penalty will be lowered than what is provided for intentional felony.

Okay. And then the next one is incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable excuse me fear. So da um uncontrollable fear is an exempting circumstance if the threat which caused the fear was of an evil greater than or at least equal to that which he was required to commit. So threat at least balance equal no level. And then the next element is that it promised an evil of such gravity and um imminence that an ordinary person would have succumbed to it. That it is very evil. It's very evil. It's cruel and the perpetrator will really have no choice but to actually fall prey from it. So if these two elements are present, then it's going to be an exempting circumstance. But if either no, if there is only one mitigating I mean if there is only one of these two requisites is present, then there is only a mitigating circumstance. So first one actually lesser no lesser threat which like for example um that your property will be damaged if person B, you killed person B. Now in this case, first element or equal proportionate um injury or the threat that is being used against you. So in this case [Music] um dangerous ba most important ba um property than the life of another person? Are they equal? Of course not. It's not even greater. It's not also equal to the life of the person. So the first element is actually absent. And then for example ano naman second element um um he's not really capable no of doing the threat. He's not really capable of doing the threat and he does that all the time. And you knew you knew for it the fact that he's just joking. That's his personality. It's the character that he has that you don't actually need to succumb to it. So in that case, the second element is not really present. So it's only going to be a mitigating circumstance and and it's not going to be an exempting one.

Okay. And now let's move on to paragraph number two which talks about the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70 years in the case of minor. He shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provision of article 80. Well, excuse me. So in this case class, it has I think been impliedly repealed by the by Republic Act 9344. So we have to check on article I mean RA 9344 for um the procedure. No under article or RA 9344. So again as I've mentioned earlier n man over 70 years 70 ka above exempted 70 years old. But the law says you are only going to be having your liability mitigated.

And then the next par uh paragraph is what we call here the offender had no intention to commit so grave or wrong as that committed. So it ginatawager intention. If you could still remember um our previous discussion. No. Under article 4 paragraph number one wherein the offender commit is committing a felony. Although he had no um intention of committing what? Committing the wrongful act that was done. So in this case, it's going to be just mitigating circumstance. Like for example is um you want to injure the person because of your action. So you were not really you your the injury was greater than what you have intended. So you had no intention intention to commit so grave or wrong as that what you have committed. So when you commit prior intention, then your liability will be mitigated.

Okay. And that sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. So if the person or the victim no, the victim provoked, entice no the perpetrator, that means he is able to get mitigating circumstance. No, you know, provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. So perpetrator because you you were irritating him. So floor and you stayed in coma. So in that case s perpetrator because you will have his liability mitigated or lessened or decreased because victim provoked him. If he did not provoke the perpetrator criminal, so in this case lesser penalty.

The next one is the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. Okay. So class victim perpetrator no vindication manos perpetrator Gigi pangita um victim the one who intentionally run over the wife of the perpetrator. So he victim. So in this case, although there is a criminal liability on the part of the perpetrator, but because the act, the reason, the motive for the action by the perpetrator or of the perpetrator was because of the vindication of a grave offense to the one um to the spouse no of the perpetrator, then he will have his um liability mitigated. Not only his spouse if if um because Yeah. And then if not you or your wife Anak or descendants, mama, papa, lola or brothers or sisters, it could be legitimate, natural or adopted or relatives by affinity within the same degree. So that means relative by marriage, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. If Mga Alahasi person B. Person B k sister person C m Allah it will um amount to millions of pesos. Soon see um person C person A. Now because person B is person C sister, then lesser penalty.

Okay. Now let's move on to the sixth paragraph. We have here that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. So like for example no um the wherein the accused killed his wife because of jealousy. Um wife uncle and now see husband k you know is having doubts because the wife frequently goes to the house of his uncle. No, because of jealousy. No, because of jealousy the perpetrator killed his wife. Now the elements for the uh this circumstance data dao no the act are both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind. So in this case, the action of the wife is unlawful. Cuz of course being an infidel to your partner is actually a criminal or a violation to our law. And is it sufficient to you know to produce obfuscation or to produce intense emotion to the mind of the perpetrator? Yes. Sir because of jealousy. anita news husband to mood sos. So you see it really is so powerful that it causes intense emotion on the perpetrator that you know it uh makes his um rational mind be out of he is par he his mind is irrational, but it causes his mind to become irrational.

And the next element is and the next or the last no um element is that the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by considerable length of time during which the perpetrator might have recovered from or might recover his normal equanimity. So you the reason for having produced the obfuscation um it's still um within considerable amount of time normal thinking insane person. But you know times we are going to be out of our minds because of some circumstances that push to us to be thinking like that. But then again because of considerable time. So if that is not or that is present considerable length of time, there's still considerable length of time intense feeling [Music] right, then that means the commission or that circumstance falls under paragraph number six of article 13. The action of the the action in this case of the wife um was so powerful that it produced passion or obfuscation to the mind of his husband and of course that resulted to the killing of the wife.

The next paragraph that we have is the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. So in this case class perpetrator durren authorities or the agents. No, he voluntarily confessed his guilt without of his own valition force. sa pangita prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. So dao noto or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. So before the um presentation of the evidence for the prosecution, which means the the council for the state or the victim, the per the person has already confessed his guilt. But of course, as we have mentioned earlier, voluntarily or surrender of arrest scenario Um well, you know already n man to yourself that killing a person is morally and legally wrong. So you now have gone to the police stations and then you surrender yourself to them. OMG warrant of arresting.

Okay. Now the eighth paragraph that the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his mean of means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings. So in this case class if the perpetrator is a person with disability, then he is going to be having his liability mitigated offender. Okay. Gay mitigated bulagan offender gay mitigated PWD mitigated penalty. Okay. Exempt class because it doesn't equate to you being minor or being insane or imbecile. It's just that there are um physical defect or physical challenges suang.

And next one is such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without having depriving him of consciousness of his actions. Now in this case class [Music] consciousness say action. You still know whether or not your action is actually right or wrong. But you do not have the willpower to control yourself. As what we have mentioned last time, epileptic person, there are times that a person who is under seizure, epileptic seizure, he is not um like um what do they call this? A person who is insane or an embeile in this case [Music] will stop from the commission of a felony. So in this case because it's just that you cannot really control yourself. You cannot manage to stop yourself because of the fact in this case epilepsy. So insanity or imbecility mitigated liability and you know there has been you know um discussions regarding epilepsy and schizophrenia. Under exempting as explained epilepsy fall under um insanity, there's still consciousness unless the person really had no consciousness of what he were he was doing, then that time you would be able to um judge. So that means schizophrenia. The symptoms are hallucinations, visual. [Music] That was actually just imaginary vision. Hallucination. So hallucination pala yun. So insanity because there really is lack of consciousness of the action. So that is it for the um second to the last paragraph.

Now we have here the last paragraph which is any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mention. So um so number 10 paragraph class what it means here is that like you know parang it's comparable on a certain degree although not really similar, but you can see now it's quite no um the same. Let's just uh delve into some examples para we can better picture out what paragraph number 10 actually tells us um like for example as we have mentioned earlier 7 over 70 years of age, they will be um allowed to have their pen uh penalty penalty mitigated. Well, if um the person or the perpetrator is like 60 over 60 years old, so he's not really 70, pero because um he has poor eyesight. It's kind of similar now to the paragraph under article 13 where in it talks about over 70 years of age. So 60, you can still have better eyesight um than the 70 years of age. But 60 years old failing eyesight. So in this case consider um analogous or similar on nature on circumstance s paragraph number two under article 13. Another when you are. So you acted out of vengeance or vindication. So you also injured the one who killed your earring. So it is kind of similar um killing the earring or killing the animal kai. It's kind of similar or being outraged because of killing your because of the killing of your cat is a similar or analogous situation or circumstance to vindication of a grave offense. Because um [Music] family brother, sisters or relative by affinity kind of similar in the nature at also [Music] you voluntary restitution. of stolen property. It's sim it's kind of similar to voluntary surrender. No. So mo stolen property. It's somewhat similar to a person voluntarily surrendering to the authority. So the accused will now be given a lesser penalty. So those are examples of paragraph number 10. They're kind of similar if you actually see it. No, they're not similar. They're different, but they're similar in a way. Similar on a certain way. It is still going to be um under the constraint of article 13 parang you know clause it's just um article 13 did not limit itself or yeah mabatas ba they actually did not limit article number 13 on the other circumstances lang mallay mo palabita examples. So because you're not 70, you cannot be given lesser penalty number 10. Paragraph number 10. So parang kind of unfair at the age of 60 similar similar 70, but because of the fact 70 needed mitigating factor, but because of the fact of because of the fact that there is paragraph number 10 limit article number 13 to just a few circumstances.

Okay. So I think that ends the discussion for mitigating circumstance. We will be proceeding with um article 14 in a few. All right.