Article 10. OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE.

-- OFFENSES WHICH ARE OR IN

THE FUTURE MAY BE PUNISHABLE UNDER SPECIAL LAWS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS CODE. THIS CODE SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTARY TO SUCH LAWS, UNLESS THE LATTER SHOULD
SPECIALLY PROVIDE THE CONTRARY.

Important words and phrases

1. “Special laws”

- a special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the
Revised Penal Code. Special laws usually follow the form of America penal law. The penal clause, for example, provides a
penalty of from five to ten years or a fine not exceeding P5,000.000, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The provision of the Revised Penal Code on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws.

When the special law adopted penalties from the Revised Penal Code, the rules for graduating penalties by degrees or
determining the proper period should be applied.

Offenses under special laws, not subject to the provisions of this Code relating to attempted and frustrated crimes

The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and frustrated crime

- the penalty for the consummated crime cannot be imposed when the stage of the acts of execution is either attempted
or frustrated, because the penalty for the attempted and frustrated crime is two degrees or one degree lower,
respectively. The special law does not provide for a penalty one or two degrees lower than that provided for the
consummated stage. The special law has to fix a penalty for the frustration of the crime defined by it, in order that the
crime may be punished in case its commission reached only the attempted or frustrated stage of execution.

When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is punishable by
the same penalty provided by that law.

Plea of guilty is not mitigating in offenses punished by special law

- the please of guilty as mitigating circumstances under the Revised Penal Code (Article 13, paragraph 7) is not available
to offenses punishable under special laws.

- offenses which are punishable under the special laws are not subject to the provisions of Article 64 of the Revised
Penal Code, and it has been held that the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, relative to the application of the
circumstances modifying the criminal liability of the accused are not applicable to special laws.

- Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code prescribing the rules of the graduation of penalties containing three periods when
mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, was held inapplicable to offenses
penalized by special laws, because the penalty prescribed by special law is usually indeterminate and does not contain
three periods. For this reason, the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilty is not considered to mitigate the
liability of one accused of illegal possession of firearms.

2. ‘Supplementary”

- the word “supplementary” means supplying what is lacking

Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal Code

- the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code to special laws, by virtue of Article 10 thereof, finds relevance
only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular matter.

Revised Penal Code, not suppletory when the penalties under the special law are different from those under the Revised
Penal Code.

Aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated, in offenses punished by special laws

Special laws amending the Revised Penal Code are subject to its provisions

- P.D. No. 533 is not a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the
penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribed in the Revised Penal Code,
which is not for penalties as are ordinarily imposed in special laws, the intent seems clear that P.D. No. 533 shall be
deemed as an amendment of the Revised Penal Code, with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle, or otherwise to
be subject to applicable provisions thereof such as Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability of the offender,
a provision which is not fond in the decree, but which could not have been intended to be discarded or eliminated by
the decree. Article 64 of the same Code should, likewise, be applicable, under which the presence of two mitigating
circumstances, that of pea of guilty and extreme poverty, without any aggravating circumstances to offset them, entitles
the accused to a lowering by one degree of the penalty for the offense.

ART. 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – THOSE WHEREIN THE ACTS OF THE ACTOR ARE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, HENCE, HE IS JUSTIFIED. THERE IS NO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY
BECAUSE THERE IS NO CRIME.

Self-defense

Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the State to protect all its citizens. Also a
person cannot just give up his rights without any resistance being offered.

Rights included in self-defense:

1. Defense of person

2. Defense of rights protected by law

Defense of property:

a. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)

b. Defense of chastity

Elements:

1. Unlawful Aggression– is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it is either actual or imminent.

Actual/real aggression – Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the
aggressor, which is not merely threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. There must be real danger to
life a personal safety.

Imminent unlawful aggression – it is an attack that is impending or on the point of happening. It must not consist in a
mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude must be offensive and positively
strong.

Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression. Each of the protagonists is at once assailant and
assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound
to arise from one or the other of the combatants. Exception: Where the attack is made in violation of the conditions
agreed upon, there may be unlawful aggression.

Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the time the defense is made. It may no longer exist if
the aggressor runs away after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting. If the person attacked
allowed some time to elapse after he suffered the injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute
self-defense, but revenge.

A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his dignity is in
danger.

A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.

The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of self-defense.

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

a. Requisites:

Means were used to prevent or repel

Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it

Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to the force of the aggressor.

The rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoked when the defender is unlawfully assaulted
and the aggressor is armed with a weapon.

The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run away.

The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.

The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick a
means of defense but acted out of self-preservation, using the nearest or only means available to defend himself, even if
such means be disproportionately advantageous as compared with the means of violence employed by the aggressor.
Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used, physical condition, character,
size and other circumstances.

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.

When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression
on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led
the accused to defend himself.

When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.

When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or immediate to the
act of provocation.

Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission.

Kinds of Self-Defense

Self-defense of chastity – to be entitled to complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an attempt to rape, mere
imminence thereof will suffice.

Defense of property – an attack on the property must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of one
entrusted with the care of such property.

Self-defense in libel – physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good name, and while the
libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.

*Burden of proof – on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution).

Defense of Relative

A. Elements:

unlawful aggression

reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;

in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such
provocation.

B. Relatives entitled to the defense:

spouse

ascendants

descendants

legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters

relatives by affinity in the same degree

relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

 The third element need not take place. The relative defended may even be the original aggressor. All that is
required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation.

General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be legitimate, except in cases of brothers and
sisters who, by relatives by nature, may be illegitimate.

The unlawful aggression may depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense.

Defense of Stranger

A. Elements

unlawful aggression

reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;

the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.

Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the aggressor who comes to the defense of a
stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so long as he is not induced by a motive that is evil.

State of Necessity

Art. 11, Par. a provides:

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

A state of necessity exists when there is a clash between unequal rights, the lesser right giving way to the greater
right. Aside from the 3 requisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessity must not be due to the
negligence or violation of any law by the actor.

The person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which may
have been received. This is the only justifying circumstance which provides for the payment of civil indemnity. Under
the other justifying circumstances, no civil liability attaches. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the
proportionate amount for which law one is liable

Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office

Elements:

that the accused acted in the performance of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;

that the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty, or the
lawful exercise of such right or office.
A police officer is justified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and after such
officer fired warning shots in the air.

shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but not a thief who refused to be arrested.

The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position he claimed he was discharging at the time of the
commission of the offense. It must be made to appear not only that the injury caused or the offense committed was
done in the fulfillment of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the offense committed was a
necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful exercise of a right or office.

A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s death.

Obedience to a Superior Order

Elements:

there is an order;

the order is for a legal purpose;

the means used to carry out said order is lawful.

The subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party which may avail of this circumstance. The officer
giving the order may not invoke this.

The subordinate’s good faith is material here. If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegality, he is
not liable. However, the order must not be patently illegal. If the order is patently illegal this circumstance cannot be
validly invoked.

The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.

Even if the order be patently illegal, the subordinate may yet be able to invoke the exempting circumstances of having
acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those ground for exemption from punishment because there is wanting
in the agent of the crime of any of the conditions which make the act voluntary, or negligent.

Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or
on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE
(without intelligence, freedom of action or fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT FROM PUNISHMENT.

There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because of the complete absence of any of the
conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act.

Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by the defendant to the
satisfaction of the court.