Sustancias candidatas a la lista de COP y otras sustancias consideradas en el PNA

a. Minority over 9 and under 15 – if minor acted with discernment, considered Privilege mitigating

Example: 13 year old stole goods at

nighttime. Acted with discernment as shown by the manner in which the act was committed.

* If the offender is proven to have acted with discernment, this is where the court may give him the benefit of a suspended sentence. He may be given the benefit of a suspended sentence under the conditions mentioned earlier and only if he would file an application therefor.

b. Causing injury by mere accident – if 2nd requisite (due care) and 1st part of 4th requisite (without fault – thus negligence only) are ABSENT, considered as mitigating because the penalty is lower than that provided for intentional felony.

Example: Police officer tries to stop

a fight between Juan and Pedro by firing his gun in the air. Bullet ricocheted and killed Petra. Officer willfully discharged his gun but was unmindful of the fact that area was populated.

c. Uncontrollable fear – only one

requisite present, considered mitigating

Example: Under threat that their

farm will be burned, Pedro and Juan took turns guarding it at night. Pedro fired in the air when a person in the shadows refused to reveal his identity. Juan was awakened and shot the unidentified person. Turned out to be a neighbor looking for is pet. Juan may have acted under the

By Rene Callanta Page 39

influence of fear but such fear was not entirely uncontrollable. Considered mitigating.

2. That the offender is UNDER 18

YEARS of age or OVER 70 YEARS. In

the case of a minor, he shall be

proceeded against in accordance

with the provisions of Art 192 of PD

903

 Applicable to:

a. Offender over 9, under 15 who acted with discernment

b. Offender over 15, under 18 c. Offender over 70 years

 Age of accused which should be

determined as his age at the date of commission of crime, not date of trial

 VARIOUS AGES AND THEIR LEGAL EFFECTS

a. under 9 – exemptive circumstance b. over 9, below 15 – exemptive; except if acted with discernment

c. minor delinquent under 18 – sentence may be suspended (PD 603)

d. under 18 – privileged mitigating circumstance

e. 18 and above – full criminal responsibility

f. 70 and above – mitigating

circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution of death sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted.

* If the minor acted with discernment( age 9-15 ), he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance and by source of authority of Article 68, the penalty is reduced by two degrees from that prescribed by law for the crime committed.

If the offender is over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, discernment is no longer in issue but the offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance and the reduction is only by one degree. (Garcia

vs. Madrigal, 857 Phil. 651)

3. That the offender had no intention

to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed (Praeter Intentionem)

 Can be used only when the facts prove to show that there is a notable and

evident disproportion between means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences

* Intent is an indispensable element of the crime. When the intent is less than the actual act committed, reason and fair play dictate that a mitigated responsibility be imposed upon the offender.

 Intention: as an internal act, is judged by the proportion of the means employed to the evil produced by the act, and also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of the body.

 Judge by considering (1) the weapon used, (2) the injury inflicted and (3) the attitude of mind when the accuser attacked the other.

Example: Pedro stabbed Tomas on the

arm. Tomas did not have the wound treated, so he died from loss of blood.

 Not applicable when offender employed

brute force

Example: Rapist choked victim. Brute

force of choking contradicts claim that he had no intention to kill the girl.

 Art 13, par 3 addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage.

 In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. Mitigating only when the victim dies.

Example: As part of fun-making, Juan

merely intended to burn Pedro’s clothes. Pedro received minor burns. Juan is charged with physical injuries. Had Pedro died, Juan would be entitled to the mitigating circumstance.

By Rene Callanta Page 40  Not applicable to felonies by negligence.

Why? In felonies through negligence, the offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill in culpable felonies. There is no intent on the part of the offender which may be considered as diminished.

 Basis of par 3: intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished

Praeter intentionem

The common circumstance given in the bar of praeter intentionem, under paragraph 3, means that there must be a notable disproportion between the means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony. If the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, this circumstance does not avail. This circumstance does not apply when the crime results from criminal negligence or culpa. When the crime is the product of reckless imprudence or simple negligence, mitigating circumstances does not apply. This is one of the three instances where the offender has performed a felony different from that which he intended. Therefore, this is the product of intentional felony, not a culpable one.

4.

That

the

SUFFICIENT