Justifying, Mitigating & Aggravating Circumstances
The inclusion of justifying, mitigating, and aggravating circumstances in Philippine law serves several critical purposes aimed at ensuring justice is applied fairly and proportionately.
1. Balancing Punishment and Responsibility: These circumstances allow the courts to tailor penalties based on the specific details of each case. By recognizing that not all crimes are committed with the same level of guilt or intent, the law provides mechanisms to either reduce or increase penalties to reflect the offender’s moral blameworthiness. This ensures that the punishment is proportionate to the crime.
​
2. Promotion of Fairness and Equity: The law recognizes that certain situations can diminish or enhance an individual’s culpability. For example, mitigating circumstances such as voluntary surrender or a lack of intent to cause serious harm show that while a crime was committed, there were factors that reduce the individual’s responsibility. On the other hand, aggravating circumstances like treachery or cruelty highlight a higher degree of malice or harm, justifying harsher penalties.
​
3. Protection of Society and Victims: Aggravating circumstances focus on the protection of society and the victims of crimes. By imposing stricter penalties on individuals who act with treachery, cruelty, or under particularly harmful circumstances, the law seeks to deter more dangerous behavior and ensure that those who pose a greater threat to society face appropriate consequences.
​
4. Encouraging Accountability and Rehabilitation: Mitigating circumstances can encourage offenders to take responsibility for their actions. For example, voluntary surrender or showing remorse can lead to reduced penalties, promoting rehabilitation rather than punishment alone. This flexibility can help offenders reintegrate into society, especially when their actions are not entirely malicious.
​
5. Historical and International Influence: The inclusion of these circumstances is influenced by legal traditions from Spain (through the Revised Penal Code) and international law. Many legal systems recognize varying degrees of criminal responsibility, making Philippine law aligned with global standards in criminal justice.
In essence, these circumstances in Philippine law help to individualize justice, ensuring that the legal system considers not just the crime itself, but the context, the intentions, and the broader impact of the offender’s actions. This promotes both fairness and societal protection.
Justifying Circumstances
Justifying Circumstances in Criminal Law
Justifying circumstances refer to situations where an act that would ordinarily be considered a crime is excused because it is legally justified. This principle exempts a person from criminal liability if their actions are necessary and legally defensible. The existence of such a principle is rooted in the idea that not all harmful acts should be punishable if done for a lawful reason, especially when the individual had no choice or acted out of necessity.
Historical Roots of Justifying Circumstances
The concept of justifying circumstances can be traced back to ancient legal systems, including Roman law, which recognized certain defenses such as self-defense (i.e., defensio), necessity (necessitas), and the fulfillment of duties (officium). These defenses evolved over centuries and were incorporated into modern legal codes, including the Spanish Penal Code, which heavily influenced the Philippine legal system during the colonial period.
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, enacted in 1930, reflects these historical roots by codifying various justifying circumstances under Article 11. Many of these defenses have parallels in other legal systems, including Anglo-American law, which recognizes similar concepts like self-defense, necessity, and lawful authority.
​
1. Self-defense
Description: A person who is unlawfully attacked may defend themselves, and if the means used are reasonable, they are not criminally liable. The elements include [1] unlawful aggression, [2] reasonable necessity, and [3] lack of provocation.
Case: In People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the accused killed the victim after the latter attacked him during a confrontation. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused acted in self-defense as unlawful aggression was present when, without provocation, he was attacked by the victim armed with a bolo as well as the victims' companions armed with sharp weapons and the force used was reasonable. The Court observed that the use of a dagger was not excessive in light of the imminent danger posed by the victim and his companions. Narvaez claimed that before the incident, he had no prior interaction with the victim that could have led to the attack. He testified that the victim, for reasons unknown to him, suddenly became hostile and attacked him. Additionally, there was no evidence presented by the prosecution showing any previous altercation between the two parties.
​
2. Defense of Relatives
Description: A person may act to defend their relatives under the same conditions as self-defense.
In Leo Abuyo y Sagrit v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 250495, July 6, 2022), the Supreme Court ruled on the elements of self-defense and defense of a relative, and found that Leo Abuyo’s actions were justified in the context of defending himself and his father.
The case began when Leo and his father were confronted by two armed men, Cesar and Charles Tapel. Leo’s father was stabbed by Cesar, and Leo intervened. After disarming Cesar momentarily, Leo was again confronted when Cesar regained possession of his knife. Leo, fearing for his life and his father’s safety, used a bolo to defend against the renewed aggression. Despite the argument that Leo could have disabled Cesar rather than delivering a fatal blow, the Court ruled that Leo acted out of fear and a legitimate sense of self-preservation. The Court emphasized that in situations of imminent threat, the defender’s instinct for survival often overrides careful calculation, and thus, the means of defense must be assessed based on the immediate danger and not from a detached, calm perspective.
The Court concluded that Leo was justified in his actions, acquitting him on the basis of self-defense and defense of a relative, recognizing that the danger was real and imminent, and that Leo’s response, though extreme, was reasonable under the circumstances
​
In Bayle v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210975, March 11, 2020, PO1 Apolinario Bayle filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to reverse the Decision dated June 14, 2013 and the Resolution dated January 22, 2014, of the Court of Appeals (CA). The lower court found Apolinario guilty of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, but he claimed self-defense and defense of a relative. The trial court dismissed his claim, but the Petition for Review on Certiorari was granted, and he was acquitted. The Supreme Court found that the defense was able to demonstrate that Apolinario acted in self-defense and in defense of a relative, thus reversing the decision of the lower court and ordering his immediate release if detained for any other lawful cause.
3. Defense of a Stranger
Description: A person may defend a stranger from an unlawful attack if the same elements of self-defense are met.
Case: In People of the Philippines v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018 Rodolfo Olarbe was charged and convicted of murder for killing Romeo Arca. He invoked self-defense and defense of a stranger, stating that he killed Arca to save himself and his common-law wife. The trial court rejected his pleas and held that the killing was treacherous. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, acquitting Olarbe based on self-defense and defense of a stranger. The Court found that there was continuous and persistent unlawful aggression by Arca, justifying Olarbe's actions to repel the aggression. The Court also noted that Olarbe voluntarily surrendered to the police, which bolstered his pleas for self-defense and defense of a stranger. Therefore, Olarbe was acquitted and declared not civilly liable to the heirs of Arca.
​
4. Performance of Duty
Description: When a person performs an act in the lawful execution of their duties, they are exempt from liability if the act is within their legal authority.
Case: Frias, Jr., et al. v. People et al., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984
The case involves a petition for review by certiorari seeking reversal of the decision of the Sandiganbayan, which found the petitioners guilty of murder. The petitioners claim that they acted in self-defense or in the fulfillment of duty as police officers when they shot the victim. The court examines the testimonies of witnesses, including the victim's daughter and other individuals who claim to have witnessed the killing. The court also considers evidence of the victim's prior actions, including shooting and injuring two individuals. The Solicitor General recommends acquittal of the petitioners, stating that one of the petitioners acted in the fulfillment of duty as a police officer. The court ultimately acquits both petitioners due to insufficient evidence, with one acquitted for acting in the fulfillment of duty and the other acquitted due to lack of evidence of conspiracy.
​
5. Obedience to a Lawful Order
​
Description: A subordinate following a lawful order from a superior may be justified in their actions if the order is legal and reasonable.
Case: People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 137707-11, December 17, 2004
In this case, the court acknowledged the justifying circumstance of obedience to a lawful order under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. The accused acted in obedience to a court order, which was considered a justifying circumstance
​
6. State of Necessity
Description: A person may be justified in committing an act if it is done to avoid a greater harm, provided the harm caused is not disproportionate to the harm avoided.
Case:In US v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910, the accused killed his roommate, believing he was an intruder attempting to harm him. The Court ruled that the accused acted in a state of necessity, as he believed his life was in danger.
​
7. Fulfillment of a Duty
Description: A person may perform an act in fulfillment of a legal duty, and if done lawfully, it will exempt them from liability.
Case: In Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005 SPO2, Ruperto Cabanlig appealed the Sandiganbayan decision convicting him of homicide for shooting Jimmy Valino. The court found that Cabanlig acted in self-defense and fulfillment of duty, as Valino posed a grave danger to the police officers by grabbing an M16 Armalite and attempting to escape. The court acquitted Cabanlig of the crime of homicide and ordered his immediate release from prison. The court also recommended filing an administrative case against Cabanlig and his co-accused for gross negligence.
​
These justifying circumstances are essential in the Philippine legal system as they promote justice by recognizing that not all seemingly unlawful acts warrant punishment when there are justifiable reasons for them. The law provides flexibility in assessing criminal liability, ensuring that individuals who act to protect themselves or others, or in the course of their duties, are not unfairly punished.
​
“SELF-LAW”
S – Self-Defense (When the person acts to defend themselves from unlawful aggression)
E – Extreme Necessity (State of necessity, where harm is prevented by sacrificing a lesser harm)
L – Lawful Defense of Relative (Defense of a relative against unlawful aggression)
F – Fulfillment of Duty (When a person acts in the performance of a lawful duty)
L – Lawful Defense of Stranger (Defense of a stranger from unlawful aggression)
A – Avoidance of Greater Evil (Avoiding greater harm through an action that would otherwise be illegal)
W – When Acting Under Authority (Lawful exercise of a right or office, such as a police officer making an arrest)
Mitigating Circumstances
Mitigating circumstances refer to factors that reduce the severity of the penalty imposed on a defendant, even though the crime has been proven. These circumstances do not justify or excuse the criminal act but lessen the moral culpability of the offender, leading to a reduced sentence. Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines, mitigating circumstances can lower the penalty, often allowing the court to impose a lesser punishment than what the law typically prescribes. Here are the common mitigating circumstances and relevant cases:
1. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances (Article 13, RPC)
When the elements of a justifying or exempting circumstance (e.g., self-defense) are not fully met, the accused may still benefit from a mitigated penalty. For instance, if the offender did not provoke the attack but used excessive force in self-defense, the act may not be fully excused, but the penalty can be reduced.
Case Example: People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983)
The accused invoked self-defense, but it was found that although the victim initiated the aggression, the accused used more force than necessary. Hence, it was considered an incomplete justifying circumstance, mitigating the offense.
2. Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense (Art. 13, par. 5, RPC)
This applies when a person commits a crime in response to a serious offense or insult. The law recognizes human weakness in the heat of passion.
Case Example: People v. Oanis (G.R. No. L-47722, October 20, 1943)
Here, the accused were found to have acted due to the provocation of an insult but had overstepped the bounds in retaliating. The court considered the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication.
3. Passion or Obfuscation (Art. 13, par. 6, RPC)
Passion or obfuscation refers to a powerful emotional disturbance that affects the rational thinking of an individual due to an event that directly touches their emotions. This reduces the moral blameworthiness of the crime.
Case Example: People v. Lava (G.R. No. L-1613, October 27, 1949)
The court considered passion or obfuscation when the accused killed someone in the heat of strong emotional disturbance, sparked by an immediate, highly personal event.
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat (Art. 13, par. 4, RPC)
This mitigating circumstance applies when the offender is provoked or threatened immediately before the crime is committed, causing a loss of self-control.
Case Example: People v. Ganal (G.R. No. 89816, October 22, 1991)
The accused was provoked by a series of events involving his wife, which led to an impulsive criminal act. The court recognized that the provocation played a role in mitigating the penalty.
5. Voluntary Surrender (Art. 13, par. 7, RPC)
Voluntary surrender is appreciated when the offender surrenders to the authorities voluntarily and without coercion before the arrest is made, showing remorse or a desire to cooperate.
Case Example: People v. Ignacio (G.R. No. 127903, August 8, 2000)
The accused voluntarily surrendered to the authorities after committing the crime, leading to the reduction of the penalty.
6. Plea of Guilty (Art. 13, par. 7, RPC)
If the accused pleads guilty before the trial, this is considered a mitigating circumstance, as it demonstrates remorse and saves the state time and resources in proving guilt.
Case Example: People v. Catubig (G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001)
In this case, the court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilt, which resulted in a lesser penalty.
7. Lack of Intent to Commit So Grave a Wrong (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC)
When the accused commits an act without the intention of inflicting the harm or causing a result as serious as the one that occurred, the penalty may be mitigated.
Case Example: People v. Ural (G.R. No. L-30801, September 30, 1974)
The accused did not intend to kill but only to inflict harm, which resulted in an unintended death. The court mitigated the sentence based on the lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
8. Physical Defects (Art. 13, par. 2, RPC)
This applies to an offender whose physical condition (e.g., being deaf, blind, or suffering from another disability) diminishes their capability to commit a crime with full understanding.
Case Example: People v. Opena (G.R. No. 87769, July 5, 1990)
The accused was blind in one eye, which limited his perception and reaction, mitigating his responsibility for the criminal act committed.
Mitigating circumstances, when present, can lower the degree of penalty imposed, thus showing the law’s flexibility in acknowledging human behavior and various factors influencing the commission of a crime.
​
“VIPPP VIMM"
​
V – Voluntary Surrender (Surrendering to authorities before arrest)
I – Incomplete Justifying/Exempting Circumstance (Not all elements of a justifying/exempting circumstance are present)
P – Passion or Obfuscation (Act committed in the heat of passion or mental confusion)
P – Provocation (Sufficient provocation or threat)
P – Plea of guilty before trial
V – Vindication (Immediate vindication of a grave offense)
L – Lack of Intent (No intent to commit so grave a wrong)
M – Minority (Offender is under 18 but over 15 years old)
M – Mental/Physical Defects (Suffering from a mental/physical condition that limits accountability)
Aggravating Circumstances
Aggravating circumstances refer to factors that increase the severity of a criminal act, making the offense more serious and thereby warranting a harsher penalty. Unlike mitigating circumstances, which lessen the penalty, aggravating circumstances show a higher degree of malevolence or criminal intent. These are provided under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines and are considered during sentencing to elevate the penalty within the prescribed range. Below is a discussion of common aggravating circumstances, each accompanied by an appropriate case.
1. Taking Advantage of Public Position (Art. 14, par. 1, RPC)
This applies when the offender uses their public office or position to facilitate the commission of the crime. The trust placed in public officials by the people makes such misuse of power a serious aggravating factor.
Case Example: People v. Matondo (G.R. No. 183090, February 14, 2011)
A barangay chairman used his influence to intimidate and control a situation, enabling him to commit a crime. His public position was a key aggravating factor in the case.
2. Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities (Art. 14, par. 2, RPC)
When the crime is committed in a way that shows disrespect for public authorities, it increases the severity of the act. This circumstance can be invoked if the crime occurs in the presence of public officials performing their duties.
Case Example: People v. Pilapil (G.R. No. 82508, March 13, 1990)
In this case, the crime was committed in the presence of police officers, showing contempt for their authority. The court recognized this as an aggravating circumstance.
3. Crime Committed in a Palace of the Chief Executive, in a Place Dedicated to Religious Worship, or during a Religious Ceremony (Art. 14, par. 3, RPC)
A crime committed in such sacred or high-security places, or during a religious ceremony, shows a greater degree of disregard for societal values and order, thus warranting a higher penalty.
Case Example: People v. Reyes (G.R. No. L-33924, May 5, 1980)
The crime was committed inside a church during a mass. The sanctity of the location and the timing of the crime during a religious event aggravated the offense.
4. Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or by a Band (Art. 14, par. 6, RPC)
These circumstances aggravate the offense because they indicate premeditation and increased danger for the victim. Nighttime offers concealment, an uninhabited place isolates the victim, and being committed by a band shows the crime was carried out by multiple individuals acting together.
Case Example: People v. Ramos (G.R. No. 185448, March 9, 2011)
The accused committed robbery and homicide at night in an isolated area, increasing the danger and difficulty of the victim receiving help. This was considered an aggravating circumstance.
5. Abuse of Superior Strength (Art. 14, par. 9, RPC)
This circumstance is present when the offender deliberately uses their physical advantage or a superior weapon to overpower the victim, demonstrating more cruelty or a higher degree of malice.
Case Example: People v. De Leon (G.R. No. L-47851, February 29, 1980)
The accused, stronger and armed, attacked the unarmed victim, displaying an abuse of superior strength. The court ruled that this aggravated the crime of homicide.
6. Treachery (Art. 14, par. 16, RPC)
Treachery, or alevosía, refers to the deliberate and calculated act of ensuring the crime is committed without risk to the offender, giving the victim no opportunity to defend themselves.
Case Example: People v. Valdez (G.R. No. 129296, September 25, 2000)
The accused attacked the victim from behind, ensuring that the victim could not anticipate or defend against the assault. The court held that this constituted treachery, an aggravating circumstance in the case of murder.
7. Evident Premeditation (Art. 14, par. 13, RPC)
Evident premeditation exists when it is clear that the offender planned the crime in advance, giving them ample time to reflect on the consequences and act with full intent.
Case Example: People v. Manlapig (G.R. No. 132491, December 8, 1999)
The accused had sufficient time to plan and execute the killing, demonstrating evident premeditation. This was recognized as an aggravating circumstance that justified an increased penalty.
8. Cruelty (Art. 14, par. 21, RPC)
Cruelty is present when the offender deliberately increases the suffering of the victim beyond what is necessary to commit the crime. This can involve unnecessary infliction of pain or mutilation.
Case Example: People v. Samonte (G.R. No. 131172, April 29, 1999)
The victim was not only killed but was also tortured, with unnecessary pain inflicted on the body. The court found cruelty as an aggravating factor in this case.
9. Unlawful Entry (Art. 14, par. 18, RPC)
When an offender gains access to the scene of the crime by forcefully or unlawfully entering, it increases the severity of the offense, as the act itself suggests greater malice.
Case Example: People v. Enciso (G.R. No. L-25229, July 30, 1969)
The accused broke into the victim’s house to commit a crime, and the court ruled that unlawful entry was an aggravating circumstance, adding to the gravity of the offense.
10. Use of Fire or Explosives (Art. 14, par. 12, RPC)
Using fire or explosives to commit a crime elevates the danger to both the victim and the public, making the offense more serious.
Case Example: People v. Bañares (G.R. No. 138087, July 19, 2000)
The accused used an explosive device, causing massive destruction and death. The court held that the use of explosives aggravated the offense.
Conclusion
Aggravating circumstances, when proven, increase the penalty for a crime. They indicate a higher degree of criminal intent or malevolence, which the law punishes more severely. Courts carefully examine the presence of these factors, ensuring that justice is both fair and proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
​
“PAT VET CUB!”
P – Public position (Taking advantage of public office)
A – Authorities (Showing contempt for public authorities)
T – Treachery (Ensuring no defense for the victim)
V – Vindication (Immediate response to a grave offense)
E – Evident Premeditation (Planned and deliberate criminal act)
T – Time/Place (Nighttime, uninhabited place, or by a band)
C – Cruelty (Unnecessary suffering inflicted on the victim)
U – Unlawful Entry (Forceful or illegal entry into a crime scene)
B – Band (Crimes committed by a group, showing coordination and strength)