Circumstances affecting criminal liability
The single most-tested CLJ concept: what erases, excuses, lightens, or worsens criminal liability, and why the difference decides cases.
Justifying circumstances (Art. 11, RPC)
The act itself is lawful. There is no crime and no criminal, so there is generally no criminal or civil liability. Self-defense is the archetype: the law approves of what was done because the actor defended a right.
Exempting circumstances (Art. 12, RPC)
The act remains wrongful, but the actor is excused: minority, insanity, accident without fault. A crime occurred; the law spares the person. Civil liability generally survives because the wrongful act still caused damage.
Why examiners love this pair
Board items hinge on the act-vs-actor distinction. Ask of every scenario: does the law approve of the ACT (justifying), or merely excuse the ACTOR (exempting)? Then check the effect on civil liability.
| Justifying (Art. 11) | Exempting (Art. 12) |
|---|---|
| The act is lawful | The act stays wrongful |
| No crime, no criminal | Crime exists, actor excused |
| No civil liability, as a rule | Civil liability survives, as a rule |
| Self-defense, fulfillment of duty | Minority, insanity, accident |
Memory aid: JEM-A: Justifying, Exempting, Mitigating, Aggravating, ordered by how completely each erases liability.
Stay in this subject and keep the outline moving.