Art. 11 Revised Penal Code.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Introduction T!e Use o" Force #e"enses These are the justifying circumstances where the accused is
allowed to use force i.e to inflict injury upon the victim or to destroy property. The force may either be (i)
Deadly Force or that which can result to serious physical injuries or even to the death of the victim
and (ii) Non-Deadly but reasonable force.

The se- of-Force-Defenses include (i) self-Defense (ii) Defense of !elative and (iii) Defense of
"tranger.

Par. 1. SE$F #EFENSE

I. Conce%t #hen a person uses force and causes injury to another or destroys the property of another$
in order to defend his own person$ rights$ property or honor against an aggression%attac& coming from the
victim.
T!e ele&ents 't re(uires proof of the e)istence of an* (i) unlawful aggression$ (ii) the
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attac& and (iii) the lac& of sufficient
provocation on the part of the accused. The first two are common to the three se-of- Force- Defenses.

''. First element* There must be present an unla'"ul a((ression coming from the victim.

+. This refers either to*

,. !eal or -aterial +ggression or an attac& that has bro&en out or has actually materiali.ed.
/)amples0 the act of shooting another1s with a gun0 hitting another with or without a weapon0
trespass to another1s property0 running away with another1s property0 uttering slanderous words0
publici.ing or broadcast of libelous matters.
2. 'mminent or one which is at the point of happening. They refer to acts of the victim which show a
clear and positively strong intention to cause harm to the accused$ which can only be prevented
through the use of force.
These are more than mere threatening attitudes$ or oral threats or threatening stance or postures

3. +n aggression is more serious that an act of simple provocation by the victim.

4. This element is the foundation of the se of Force Defenses. 't has to be proven otherwise there is
nothing to defend against

D. 5rinciples*
,. The aggression must be 6unlawful7 i.e the victim was not acting in accordance with laws$ or
under color of right. Thus the following do not constitute 6unlawful7 aggression* (i) the act of a
property owner in pushing out an intruder for refusing to leave peacefully (ii) the act of a policeman
in handcuffing a law violator (iii) the scolding by a teacher of an unruly student.

2. The aggression must come from the victim.

8. +t the time of the defense$ the aggression must still be continuing and in e)istence. 'n the
following instances there is no more aggression and if the accused still uses forces$ he becomes
the aggressor*
a). #hen the attac&er desists$ or is prevented or restrained by third persons0 or is divested of
his weapon$ or is overpowered
b). #hen the attac&er retreats unless it is to secure a more vantage position

9. :uestion* #hen the person attac&ed was able to wrest the weapon or has disarmed his attac&er$
may he use the weapon against the attac&er; +nswer* No because the aggression has ceased
unless the attac&er persist to grab bac& the weapon for in such case$ there is still imminent danger
tot his life or limb.

<. Thus* there must be no appreciable lapse of time between the unlawful aggression and the act
done to repel or prevent it

=. 5resumption as to the +ggressor* #here there is no direct evidence who was the aggressor$ it
may be presumed that the one who was deeply offended by the insult was the one who had a right
to demand an e)planation from the perpetrator of the insult and he must have been the one who
struc& first if the proffered e)planation was unsatisfactory ( 55. vs. !amos$ >> 5hil. 9)

/. +t what point may a person attac&ed put up a defense;

1. Retreat)to)t!e)*all Princi%le. ?The doctrine which states that before a person is entitled to use
force in self defense he must first attempt to withdraw from the encounter by giving as much
ground as possible and it is only there is no more place to retreat that he may now use force to
defend himself.
This doctrine is impractical and has been abandoned

2. Stand)Your)Ground)*!en)In)T!e)Ri(!t Princi%le.- The doctrine which holds that when a
person is attac&ed in the place where he has a right to be$ he need not retreat but he may
immediately use force to defend himself.

a). This is the prevailing doctrine followed. 't applies to all especially to law enforcement agents
who are e)pected to stand their ground and to subdue$ overcome and arrest criminals.
b) + related doctrine is t!e Castle #octrine.-#hen a person is attac&ed in his dwelling (a man1s
house is his castle) he is not e)pected to retreat but he may immediately use force to defend
himself and his dwelling. This is availed of where armed persons intrude into a dwelling as it is
natural to e)pect that the armed persons would use their weapons at any time and upon any
occupant of the dwelling.

F. -ay the attac&er claim self defense;
,. +s a rule one who initiates an attac& can not claim self defense being himself the aggressor.
2. @owever he is entitled to an incomplete self defense* (a) if he is met with e)cessive force in
return and is forced to defend himself or (b) #hen he withdraws or retreats from the attac& but is
pursued by the intended victim and he had to defend himself.

A. !ule when there is an agreement to a fight or when one accepts a challenge to a fight. Neither one
can put up self defense because each is an aggressor to the other and both anticipate the aggression
coming from the other. The law leaves them where they are. /)cept when one is attac&ed by the other
in violation of the terms and conditions of the fight$ such as to the time$ place and choice of weapons
agreed upon$ then the person attac&ed may claim self defense.

'''. "econd element* There must be reasona+le necessit, of the means employed to prevent or repel the
attac&. .

+. The (uestion is whether the defense is appropriate and commensurate to the type$ degree$ and
intensity of the aggression ta&ing into consideration the place$ occasion and surrounding
circumstances of the aggression.

3. The reasonableness of the means include two aspects* (,). !easonableness of the Mode o"
#e"ense and (2) !easonableness of the C!oice o" *ea%on. + person under attac& has the right to
defend$ but as it proper for him to sue a weapon and if so$ whether the weapon chosen is
commensurate to the attac&.

4. The law re(uires !ational Necessity and !ational /(uivalence of #eapons and not Factual
/(uality$ to be determined by considering both the subjective and objective aspects of the situation.
They include the following*
,. The imminence of the danger as it appeared to the accused coupled by the instinct for self-
preservation
2. #hen the attac&er is armed$ consider the instrument of aggression and the means of defense
most readily and immediately available to the person attac&ed
8. 4onsider the physi(ue$ si.e$ age$ se)$ &nowledge of martial arts ( the hands and feet of bo)ers$
martial artists$ wrestlers$ are considered deadly weapons) of the attac&er and the person attac&ed$
including the reputation of the attac&er as a person of violence
9. 4onsider whether under the time and place of the attac&$ the person attac&ed can call for
immediate assistance
<. 4onsider the number of the attac&ers

D. #hen can Deadly Force be used;

,. #hen there is an attac& on a person1s life or limbs i.e he may either be &illed or seriously injured
2. 'n case of an attac& upon one1s property$ it must be coupled with an attac& on the person1s life
or limb which promises death or serious bodily harm$ otherwise only reasonable force must be
used.
'f there is no attac& on the person1s life or limb$ reasonable force may still be used as is
necessary to protect the property from being sei.ed$ destroyed or interfered with under
the #octrine o" Sel" -el% provided for 'n +rticle 92B of the New 4ivil 4ode.
8. 'n case of an attac& on chastity$ deadly force is allowed if there is a clear intent to rape$ which
intent maybe negated by the circumstances of time and place0 if there is no clear intent to rape only
reasonable force must be used
9. 'n case of attac& on one1s honor or reputation$ the use of physical force is never justified. #hen
one is libeled or defamed$ he may fight bac& with a similar libel or defamation provided it is only to
the e)tent which is necessary to free himself from the effects of the libel%defamation. This is called
the . #octrine o" Justi"ied $i+el/ or
. T!e Privile(e o" a Re%l, #octrine/.
<. The 5rinciple of "elf defense and se of Deadly Force does not apply to situations where a
person is injured or &illed as a result of the installation of 5rotective Devises%-ethods such as by
the installation of live electric wires on a fence$ or by attac& dogs let loose in one1s yard.

'C. The third element* $ac0 o" Su""icient Provocation on the part of the 5erson 4laiming "elf Defense.

+. 4oncept* The person attac&ed must not have given sufficient reason for the victim to attac& him.
3. 5rovocation* This includes any conduct which e)cites$ incites or induces a person to re-act$ it is
conduct which ve)es or annoys$ irritates or angers another.
4. This third element is present in any of the following situations*

,. #hen no provocation at all was given by the accused.
#hen a property owner angrily demands why the victim built a fence on his land$ which in turn
angered the victim to attac& the accused$ such conduct on the part of the accuse is not
provocation.

2. #hen there was provocation but it was not sufficient i.e. it may have ve)ed or annoyed but was
not sufficient for the victim to ma&e the &ind of attac& he employed upon the accused. The
sufficiency must be measured in relation to the reaction of the victim

8. #hen sufficiency provocation was given but it was not immediate to the attac&

D. /)amples of sufficient provocation*
,. 'mputing to the victim the utterance of vulgar language
2. Trespassing into the property of the victim
8. Do&es made in poor taste or bad mouthing the victim
9. Destroying the victim1s property

#EFENSE 1F RE$ATI2E

'.. !elative* They refer e)clusively tot eh a persons1 spouse$ ascendant$ descendant$ brothers of sisters0
relatives by affinity in the same degree0 and by consanguinity within the 9th civil degree

''. The third element* T!e 1ne #e"endin( -ad No %art in t!e Provocation.

+. This is present in the following instances*
,. The relative defended did not give any provocation at all
2. 'f the relative gave provocation$ the one defending was not aware of it
8. 'f the relative gave provocation$ the one defending did not participate either actually or morally$
as by encouragement

3. /ven if the person defending acted out of evil motive$ such as revenge$ this defense is still available

#EFENSE 1F A STRANGER

'. "tranger is any person not a relative.

II. T!e t!ird ele&ent T!e Person #e"endin( S!ould Not 3e actuated +, Reven(e4 Resent&ent4 or
1t!er Evil Motive

+. The accused must prove he acted out of an honest desire to save the life or limb or property of the
stranger and not because his true intention was to harm the victim. 'f otherwise he is deemed to be
committing a crime there being present the elements of actus reus and mens rea.

3. :/"T'EN* "uppose it was the stranger who gave provocation; The accused is entitled to this
defense.


RE$ATE# PRINCIP$ES T1 T-E
USE 1F F1RCE #EFENSES

'. !ationale behind these defenses*
+. For self defense* ,. 't is the natural and inherent right of every person to defend himself 2. The state
can not protect its citi.ens at all times hence it gives them the right to defend themselves
3. For Defense of !elative* 't is in recognition of the strong ties of blood i.e blood is thic&er than water.
4. For Defense of "trangers* #hat a man can do in his defense$ another can do for him.

''. 4ases in which the 5rinciple of "elf Defense +pplies
+. Defense of Fife and Fimb
3. Defense of 5roperty
4. Defense of @onor%!eputation
D. Defense of 4hastity
/. Defense of 4ivil$ 5olitical and natural !ights

'''. Factors +ffecting the 4redibility of the Defenses

+. The claim of self defense$ ( as well as of relative and stranger) are inherently wea& and easily
fabricated$ and must be corroborated by independent evidence
3. The location$ number and nature of the wounds of the victim must be considered and may disprove
the claim of self-defense
4. The lac& of wounds of the accused may disprove self defense and proof the lac& of aggression on
the part of the victim
D. + refusal to give a statement upon surrendering$ or non-assertion thereof$ is inconsistent with a
claim of self defense. + claim of self-defense$ if true$ must be asserted promptly.

Par. 5 An, Person *!o Acts in Ful"ill&ent o" a #ut,
1r In $a'"ul E6ercise o" a Ri(!t or 1""ice


'. !e(uirements%/lements
+. The accused was in the actual performance of a duty or in the lawful e)ercise of a right or office
3. @e caused harm or injury to another as a necessary conse(uence of the performance of his duty or
e)ercise of a right or office
4. @e was not negligent or that there was no abuse$ or e)cess or oppression on the part of the
accused

''. The term office or duty does not necessarily refer to a public office or public duty as it is to be
understood in its generic sense. 't includes private office or employment or duty as well as the e)ercise of
a calling or a profession or occupation.

'''. 'llustrations*

+. #hen injuries are inflicted on a suspect who resists a valid arrest
3. "hooting an escaping prisoner in order to immobili.e and prevent his escape$ even if the shooting
resulted to his death. 3ut not shooting him again after he was already immobili.ed$ or he gives up
4. Gilling of rebels by soldiers is not homicide or murder0 or destruction of private property in a firefight
between rebels%criminals and soldiers%law enforcers
+mputation of patients by physicians in order to save their lives
D. Fawyers calling witnesses as liars are not liable for defamation or unjust ve)ation
/. "colding la.y students by teachers is not defamation
F. /)ecutioners are not criminally liable
. + lawyer who writes a reply-letter describing the adverse party as untruthful and hypocrite

'C. +pplication in !elation to Faw /nforcers #ho sed Force and &ill or 'njure "uspects%accused

,. 4abanlig vs. "andiganbayan ( Duly 2H$ 2II<)

F+4T"* + suspect who was onboard a police vehicle$ suddenly grabbed the armalite rifle of one of the
policemen and jumped from the vehicle. Ene of the policemen shouted 6hoy7 and the accused
policeman simultaneously shot the suspect three times resulting to the death of the suspect. 's he
policeman liable for the death of the victim;
.
@/FD* No. @e acted in lawful performance of duty.

+ policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using force as is reasonably necessary to secure
and detain the offender$ over come his resistance$ prevent escape$ recapture him if necessary and
protect himself form bodily injury. 'n case injury or death results from the policeman1s e)ercise of such
force$ the policeman could be justifiedJ if the policeman had used necessary force. "ince the
policeman1s duty re(uires him to overcome the offender$ the force e)erted J may there fore differ from
that which ordinarily may be offered in self-defense. @owever$ a policeman is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating the offender with wanton violence$ or in resorting to dangerous means
when the arrest could be effected otherwise. ( 4abanlig vs. "andiganbayan ( Duly 2H$ 2II<).

2. !e* Duty to 'ssue #arning.

The duty to issue a warning is not absolutely mandated at all times and at all cost$ to the detriment of
the life of law enforcers. The directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation where several
options are still available to the law enforcers. 'n e)ceptional circumstancesJ where the threat to the
life of a law enforcer is already imminent$ and there is no other option but to use force to subdue the
offender$ the law enforcer1s failure to issue a warning is e)cusable. ( 4abanlig vs. "andiganbayan)
case*

Par. 7. 1+edience to a $a'"ul 1rder o" a Su%erior

'. 4oncept and /lements* +ny person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some
lawful purpose. This presupposes that a person carried out the order of his superior but in so doing he
cause armor injury to another. @e is not libel provided the following elements are present*

+. +n order was issued by a superior acting within the sphere of his lawful rights
3. The order is for some lawful purpose
4. The means to carry out the order is lawful

''. The term 6superior7 includes any person higher in ran& to the accused and who is entitled to demand
obedience form the accused. "uch ran& is not necessarily in the +F5 or 5N5 but includes both public and
private employment and e)tends even to ran& in social standing or in personal relations.

T!e 3attered *o&an S,ndro&e

1. $e(al Provision Created under R.A. 8979 0no'n as t!e .Anti 2iolence A(ainst *o&en and
t!eir C!ildren Act o" 9::;/

"ection 2=* 3attered #oman "yndrome as a Defense* Cictim-survivors who are found by the courts to be
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the !evised 5enal
code.

'n the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome
at the time of the commission of the crime$ the courts shall be assisted by e)pert psychologists.

2. 4oncept

a). 't is a psychological condition in which a woman commits physical violence against her husband or
mate as a result of the continued physical ort mental abuse to which he has subjected her.

b). nder this defense a woman who is constantly abused by her husband may be justified in using force
at a time when there is not strictly 6immediate danger7. The theory is that women in such circumstances
have two choices* either wait for their husband to &ill them or stri&e first in a form of offensive self-
defense.

c). Development in the 5hilippines

,. The 4ase in which it was first recogni.ed was 5eople vs. -arivic Aenosa$ Dan ,<$ 2II9 9,B "4!+
<8>) involving a wife who was convicted of 5arricide for &illing her husband who was sleeping.

a). 3attered woman* a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her
rights.. (they) include wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore$ in order
to be classified as a battered woman$ the couple must go through the cycle at least twice7

b) 3attered women e)hibit common personality traits$ such as low self esteem$ traditional beliefs about
home$ the family and the female se) role0 emotional dependence upon the dominant male0 the tendency
to accept responsibility for the batterer1s action0 and false hopes that the relationship will improve.

c) The syndrome is characteri.ed by the so called 64ycle of Ciolence7 which has three phases*

(i) The Tension 3uilding 5hase* minor battering occurs* it could be verbal or slight
physical abuse or other form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify the man
through a show of &ind$ nurturing behavior0 or by simply staying out of his way. #hat
actually happens is that she allows herself to be abused in way that to her fare minor.
+lls he wants is to prevent the escalation of the violence. 3ut her placatory and
passive behavior legitimi.es his belief that he has the right to abuse her.

(ii). The +cute 3attering 5hase* this is characteri.ed by brutality$ destructiveness
an$ sometimes death. The woman deems this incident as unpredictable yet also
inevitable. "he has no control* only the man can put an end tog the violence "he
reali.es that she can not reason with him and that resistance would only e)acerbate
her condition. "he has a sense of detachment although she may later clearly
remember the details. @er apparent passivity is because the man is stronger
physically and it is useless to fight bac&

(iii). The Tran(uil$ Foving or Non-Ciolent 5hase. The couple e)perience profound
relief. En one hand the man shows a tender and nurturing behavior and he &nows he
has been viciously cruel and tries to ma&e up for it begging her forgiveness and
promising never to beat her again. The woman also tries to convince herself that the
battery will never happen again0 that her partner will change for the better0 that this
good$ gentle and caring man is the real person she loves.

d). The foregoing cycle happens because* (i) the woman believes that the violence was her fault (ii) the
woman fears for her life and her children1s lives (iii) the woman has an irrational belief that the abuser is
all powerful and that she is beer off with him than without him for financial reasons and (iv) Fove* inspite
of constant assault$ after a little cajoling$ the woman is convinced that the man still loves her.

:/"T'EN* -ust there be unlawful aggression at the time of the &illing;

'n The Aenosa case$ it was ruled that the accused was not entitled to complete e)oneration because
there was no unlawful aggression- no immediate and une)pected attac& on her at the time she shot
him. 3ut the severe beatings repeatedly inflicted constituted a form of cumulative psychological paralysis*
diminished her will power$ thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs B and ,I of
+rticle ,8.

@owever$ !+ B2=2 has liberali.ed it in view of the provisions which reads* 6J notwithstanding the
absence for the elements of self defenseJ7