Crimes Without Criminal Liability Under Philippine Law
Why this topic matters
“Crimes without criminal liability” sounds paradoxical. In Philippine criminal law, however, there are well-defined situations where (a) an act that looks criminal is not a crime at all, or (b) the act is technically a crime but the actor is not criminally liable. Mastering these distinctions is essential for charging decisions, defenses, and judgments.
Below is a practical, doctrine-heavy guide anchored on the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and core jurisprudential doctrines—organized for study and application.
A quick map of the terrain
Acts that are not crimes (no criminal or only limited civil liability)
- Justifying circumstances (RPC Art. 11)
- Mistake of fact (jurisprudential doctrine)
- Nullum crimen sine lege (no penal law = no crime)
Crimes committed but the actor is not criminally liable
- Exempting circumstances (RPC Art. 12; civil liability usually remains via Arts. 100–101)
- Absolutory causes & special bars (e.g., Art. 332 on family property crimes; private offenses requiring a complaint; condonation/consent; state witness discharge; instigation; spontaneous desistance)
- Immunity, amnesty, pardon, prescription, double jeopardy (extinguishment or bar to prosecution)
Procedural and policy filters
- Diversion and restorative approaches for children in conflict with the law
- Complaints, consent, and other conditions precedent
I. Acts that are not crimes
A. Justifying circumstances (RPC Art. 11)
When a justification is complete, the act is lawful; there is no crime, hence no criminal liability. Civil liability is also generally extinguished—except in state of necessity where an innocent third party suffers damage.
Core justifications and their elements:
Self-defense
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender (Defense of relative or stranger mirrors these elements with variations on the provocation element and purpose.)
State of necessity (avoidance of a greater evil or injury)
- Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
- Injury feared is greater than that caused to avoid it
- No other practical and less harmful means available Civil note: The person who benefited may have to indemnify the third person who suffered loss.
Performance of duty / lawful exercise of a right or office
- The act is within legal duty/right
- Injurious consequences are due to proper performance
Obedience to a lawful order of a superior
- Order exists, is lawful, and the subordinate acted in good faith
Other codified justifications (e.g., avoidance of greater harm) operate similarly.
Burden of proof: The accused must first present clear and convincing evidence of the justification; once raised, the prosecution must negate it beyond reasonable doubt.
B. Mistake of fact (error in object or situation)
A complete defense when:
- The accused acted without malice, in good faith,
- The facts, if as believed, would make the act lawful (often mapping onto a justification like self-defense),
- There was no negligence in the mistake.
Example: Striking a figure in the dark reasonably believed to be an armed intruder. If the belief is reasonable and honest, criminal intent is absent and the act, judged under the supposed facts, is justified.
C. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
No act can be punished unless clearly defined by law before its commission. This principle blocks criminal liability for conduct not penalized (or already decriminalized) at the time of the act. It also bars ex post facto penal laws.
II. Crimes committed but no criminal liability attaches
Here, the act remains unlawful, but the law excuses the actor from criminal liability (civil liability usually survives).
A. Exempting circumstances (RPC Art. 12)
Insanity or imbecility
- Insanity must exist at the time of the act; intermittent psychosis requires proof of the episode.
- Civil liability: Those with legal custody may be subsidiarily liable; property of the insane person can answer for damages.
Minority (harmonized with the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)
- Below 15: exempt from criminal liability; subject to intervention programs.
- 15 to below 18: exempt unless shown to have acted with discernment; otherwise, diversion or appropriate proceedings under juvenile law apply.
- Civil liability: Parents/guardians may bear civil responsibility.
Accident (no fault or intent)
- A lawful act performed with due care that, by mere accident, produces harm.
Irresistible force
- Coercion that eliminates free will; the coercer is criminally liable.
Uncontrollable fear (duress)
- Real, imminent threat of equal or greater harm; fear must truly deprive free will.
Lawful or insuperable cause
- E.g., physical impossibility to perform a legal duty, preventing criminal intent.
Key point: Under Art. 101, civil liability typically subsists despite exempting circumstances (allocated to those who should answer in law: custodians, coercers, etc.).
B. Absolutory causes and special statutory bars
These are policy-based situations where the law withholds punishment for pragmatic or humanitarian reasons, even though the act is a crime.
Family property offenses (RPC Art. 332)
- Theft, swindling (estafa), malicious mischief between spouses, ascendants and descendants, and relatives by affinity in the same line, and those living together as family: no criminal liability, but civil liability remains.
- Rationale: preserve family harmony; treat disputes as civil matters.
Private offenses requiring a complaint
- Adultery and concubinage: Prosecution requires a complaint by the offended spouse; consent or prior pardon bars prosecution.
- Historically, some offenses of chastity required a complaint; statutory amendments have changed others. The doctrinal takeaway: where the law requires a specific private complaint, absence of such (or valid consent/pardon) precludes criminal liability.
Condonation/consent of the offended party (where an element of the crime is lack of consent, or the code requires a complaint)
- E.g., property crimes where consent negates the element of taking without consent; or where pardon is a statutory bar.
Instigation (vs. entrapment)
- Instigation (the State plants the criminal design in the mind of the accused) absolves; it violates due process.
- Entrapment (officers merely facilitate the capture of one already disposed to commit the crime) does not exempt.
Spontaneous desistance
- In attempted or frustrated felonies, if the offender voluntarily desists before performing all acts of execution (or prevents the consummation), he is not liable for the attempted/frustrated felony—but remains liable for any separate offenses already consummated (e.g., injuries inflicted).
State witness discharge / immunity
- When a co-accused is validly discharged as a state witness, he is exempt from prosecution for the offense covered, subject to statutory requisites (e.g., testimony is indispensable, not the most guilty, etc.).
Article 20 (accessories who are relatives)
- Certain relatives who are accessories (e.g., spouses, ascendants/descendants, relatives by affinity within degrees) are exempt from criminal liability as accessories—except when the crime is against persons or property under specific exceptions (e.g., profiting from the effects).
C. Extinguishment of criminal liability (no punishment despite a crime)
- Amnesty (acts of sovereignty, political offenses commonly)—erases the offense.
- Pardon (executive clemency)—extinguishes penalty; effects vary with conditional vs. absolute pardon.
- Death of the accused—extinguishes criminal and civil liability ex delicto, subject to civil liability ex contractu or ex quasi-delicto.
- Prescription—lapse of the prescriptive period to file or to enforce penalties bars prosecution or further service of sentence.
- Double jeopardy—bars another prosecution for the same offense after acquittal/conviction/dismissal tantamount to acquittal.
III. Procedural filters & policy levers
A. Private complaint as a condition precedent
Where the law characterizes an offense as private (e.g., adultery/concubinage), the absence of a valid complaint is jurisdictional. Filing by an unauthorized person or presence of prior condonation/consent bars criminal liability.
B. Children in conflict with the law (CICL)
- Minimum age of criminal responsibility: Below 15—no criminal liability; 15 to below 18—liable only if they acted with discernment.
- Diversion and intervention take precedence over punitive measures.
- Civil liability remains and is addressed through restorative mechanisms; parents/guardians may be subsidiarily liable.
IV. Civil liability when there is no criminal liability
The general rule (RPC Arts. 100–101): Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. But if criminal liability is absent, the civil effects depend on the ground:
| Ground (no criminal liability) | Civil liability? | Who answers |
|---|---|---|
| Justifying (Art. 11) | None, except state of necessity | Beneficiary indemnifies third party harmed |
| Exempting (Art. 12) – Insanity/imbecility | Yes | Property of insane; custodians subsidiarily |
| Exempting – Minority | Yes | Parents/guardians, subject to defenses |
| Exempting – Accident | Generally none if due care shown; otherwise quasi-delict possible | Actor (under civil law standards) |
| Irresistible force / Uncontrollable fear | Yes | Principal coercer/intimidator |
| Art. 332 family property crimes | Yes | Offender (civilly), within family circle |
| Instigation | Typically none (State caused it) | — |
| Spontaneous desistance | For prior harms only | Offender |
| Amnesty/Pardon/Prescription | Civil may remain (distinct causes like contract/tort) | As provided by civil law |
V. Practical doctrines and advocacy tips
Elements first, defenses next. Many “no-liability” outcomes arise because an element is missing (e.g., consent negates theft). Always audit the elements before invoking exemptions.
Build the record for justifications.
- Unlawful aggression is the sine qua non of self-defense. Without it, the defense fails.
- Use forensic, trajectory, injury pattern, and scene evidence to show reasonable necessity.
For mistake of fact, stress reasonableness and good faith; avoid facts that suggest negligence.
Minority and discernment.
- Prosecution bears the burden to show discernment (intelligence, moral awareness, mode of commission); defense should foreground background, school records, psychological assessments.
Instigation vs. entrapment.
- Prove who conceived the crime. State manufacture of criminal intent is a constitutional red line.
Private offenses:
- Confirm standing to complain, timing of condonation/consent, and strict compliance with statutory conditions. A defective complaint is fatal.
Use absolutory causes strategically.
- Art. 332 can convert a criminal dispute into a civil family matter; verify relationship and living arrangement where relevant.
Civil exposure planning.
- Even when criminal liability disappears, civil exposure may persist—prepare restitution, compromise, or mediation, especially in state of necessity and exempting cases.
Extinguishment and bars.
- Always check prescription, double jeopardy, and clemency landscapes before trial.
VI. Illustrative hypotheticals
Self-defense succeeds: A homeowner repels an ongoing knife attack in his foyer with proportionate force. No crime; no civil liability.
State of necessity with civil duty: A driver swerves onto a lawn to avoid running over a child, damaging a fence. No crime; the benefitted party may have to indemnify the fence owner.
Family property dispute: A daughter takes a household appliance from parents with an ownership claim. No criminal liability for theft under Art. 332; civil issues remain.
CICL without discernment: A 16-year-old shoplifts impulsively; absent proof of discernment, no criminal liability; diversion applies; civil restitution likely.
Instigated buy-bust: An undercover persistently coaxes a reluctant person to procure drugs he otherwise would not. If the State planted the criminal idea, instigation absolves.
VII. Checklist for counsel and courts
- Identify the theory: Justifying? Exempting? Absolutory cause? Extinguishment/bar?
- Prove elements or bar conditions with specificity.
- Allocate civil effects under Arts. 100–101 and related civil law.
- Guard procedural prerequisites (private complaint, standing, timelines).
- Document good faith, reasonableness, and absence of negligence for mistake-of-fact and accident defenses.
- Differentiate instigation from entrapment through testimony and operational records.
- For minors, litigate discernment comprehensively; prioritize diversion and restorative outcomes.
Bottom line
Philippine law recognizes multiple doors out of criminal liability—some because the act is not criminal (justification, mistake of fact), others because the actor is excused (exempting circumstances, absolutory causes), and still others because policy or procedure bars punishment (private complaints, state witness immunity, prescription, clemency, double jeopardy). The decisive work lies in matching facts to the precise legal door, proving its elements, and managing civil consequences that may remain.