Exempting Circumstances

After reading about justifying circumstances, we now come to the second set of circumstances that affect criminal liability: exempting circumstances. While justifying circumstances relieve a person from criminal liability by giving cause to his act, exempting circumstances allow a person to escape from criminal liability by way of exception. In all exempting circumstances, there is a question of the presence and quality of intent. Such will determine the validity of an exempting circumstance put up as a defense. The following are the exempting circumstances enumerated under the Revised Penal Code:

1.) Imbecility or insanity, unless an insane person (not an imbecile) acted in a lucid interval

2.) Persons under 9 years old

3.) Persons above 9 years old but below 15 if they didn't act with discernment

4.) A person performing a lawful act with due care but causes injury by mere accident without fault or the intention to cause the injury

5.) Any person compelled by an irresistible force (like having a gun put to his head, for example)

6.)Any person acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury (like a death threat or hostage-taking)

7.) If a person who is required to perform an act required by law but is prevented by a lawful or insuperable cause

An imbecile isn't the same as an insane person. An insane person is insane. Period. An imbecile is someone who has the mental development of a child between 2 to 7 years old. In People vs. Ambal 100 SCRA 325 an imbecile under Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code is somebody who, when the crime was committed, deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will. Imbecility or insanity must be proven for a grant of exemption to be given. 

Circumstances 2 and 3 have now come under RA 9344. Regarding discernment, 2 things can be used by the court to determine if discernment was present when a minor commits a crime: the manner of committing the crime and the offender's conduct. If the way the crime was committed demonstrates that the minor used his intelligence (such as committing the crime at night or hiding the stolen items in another person's house) then the court can safely say that the minor acted with discernment. The way the minor behaves when the crime is committed can also serve as a basis for the presence or absence of discernment. One such instance is when a child snatches a cellphone, is grabbed by the owner, but manages to pull a knife out of nowhere and stab the owner with it (it happens!)

There is no irresistible force in a moment of passion or obfuscation. Irresistible force requires that the force be applied by a third party.

An insuperable cause is a cause that actually (read: physically) prevents a person from doing an act that is lawfully required of him. A lawful cause is a cause that prevents a person from performing another lawful act; priests, for instance, are lawfully prevented from revealing the contents of confessions made to them by virtue of their professional capacity. Employees of a bank can't divulge information about the bank records of his clients unless the requirements in the bank secrecy law, the anti-money laundering law, the foreign currency deposits law or other related bank laws are complied with. So you see why the waiver was so important during the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Corona.