JUST I FY{NG AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: AN OVERVIEW

Dean Antonio L. Gregorio*

Conceptually, in a justifying and exempting circumstance the accused does ·not incur any·criminalliability. The rationale of a justifying circumstance is that the act committed is in accordance with law, so that it is considered that the actor has not infringed the law, and therefore he does not incur any criminal nor civil liability. The source of the civil liability which is the delict is absent. While it is true that in the justifying circumstance of state of necessity 1 Article 101, par. 2 of t!e Revised Penal Code, provides for civil liability, such, however, does not devolve upon the actor but "upon the persons for whose benefit the hann has been prevented x x x in proportion to the benefit which they may have received." On the other hand, in an exempting circumstance, a crime is committed, but there is a complete absence of any of the elements or. conditions of voluntariness of the act. Since the crime is not committed voluntarily, the offender is not criminal­ly liable although he is civilly liable because the crime, which is the source of the obligation, is present.

Whereas, a justifying circumstance inheres in the act committed, which is lawful, an exempting circumstance is personal to the offender. In essence, in a justifying circumstance there is a crime but there is no criminal.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMST~CES

The justifying circumstances are self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of stranger, state of necessity, fulflllment of duty or exercise of a right and obedience to superior order.2

1. Self-Defense- Ba.~.s and Rationale

In the case of People v. Boholst.:.Caballero3 the basis of self-defense was culled by the Supreme Court from continental renowned criminologists4 as fol­lows:

"To the Classicist in penal law, lawful defense is grounded on the impossibil­ity on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a

• Dean, San Sebastian College of Law

20