CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL

LIABILITY
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Circumstances, which, if attending the commission of act, makes
the act lawful, it is justified and in accordance with law an
therefore, the act is not a crime.
1.) ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON
OR RIGHTS.
Self-defense only applies to crimes against persons.
3 Element!
A.) Unl"#$%l A&&'e()n
Without this element, there could be no self defense.
If ether of the 2
nd
and
rd
elements is lacking, as long as there is
unlawful aggression, it constitute an incomplete self-defense,
which is a mitig. circumstances.
!ggression is a physical attack which can cause injury or e"en
death. So if there is no physical aggression #only "erbal$ there is
no aggression to speak of.
2 kinds of aggression%
&awful !ggression ' !ccording to rules of court, the arresting
officer can use such force as may be reasonably necessary to effect
the arrest, and because he can use force in the process of effecting
the arrest, the policeman may become an aggressor.
(nlawful !ggression ' !ggression can either be actual or
threatened.)hreatened aggression amounts to actual aggression , if
threatened harm is imminent, or on pt. of happening.Its in less *
second, you are dead. )hen that+s the aggression we speak of.
,!-%.ou are inside your house in the 2
nd
floor. )hen , from
below shouts at you, challenging you to fight /Wait there and I
will kill you0 , was going to kill you but to beat him to it you
killed him first.Is the threatened harm imminent1 )ake note that ,
still has to go up.
2o, threatening attitude is not e3ui"alent to an actual aggression.
So it+s a 3uestion of e"idence, is there harm now or on the point of
happening1 Is there death now or on the point of happening1
If answer is no, then, the threatened harm does not amount to
unlawful aggression. It is a future aggression. .ou ha"e no right
to act now simply because there is a threat.
Suppose ! attacked , 4 , landed on the ground sustaining many
blows. )hen ! left when ! left, , stood up, chased ! 4 attacked
him , killed !. , claimed that the killing of a ! is a self-defense
since it was ! who attacked him first.Is , entitled to self-defense1
2o, you could only act in self-defense while aggression is still
going on or is about to start.
5owe"er in another scenario,when 6 started to hit 5, that
constituted unlawful aggression, so when 5 shot 6, he was
justified in doing so as he was only acting in self-defense.,ut the
moment , run away, the danger to !+s life 4 limb ceased.
(nlawful aggression ended.
!nother illustration is when ! tries to run with your wallet and in
order to stop him from running away, you shoot him to death. Can
you claim self defense127 ' self defense applies only if attack on
one+s property is coupled with attack on his person like when !
tried to get your money and when you tried to resist, ! drew out
his knife or that ! entered your house and in getting your property,
he tried to kill you but you killed him first.
B) Re")n"*le Ne+e(t, )$ t-e me"n em.l),e/ t) .'e0ent t-e
"&&'e()n.
8aybe it is unreasonable to use a knife when somebody attack you
with a first.,ut when 9 or *: people attack you with their first; you
use a knife against them, that is reasonable.7r when the aggressor
is 8anny <ac3uiao or 8ike )yson.
C) L"+1 )$ %$$(+(ent .')0)+"t()n )n t-e ."'t )$ t-e .e')n
/e$en/(n& -(mel$.
6ictim of unlawful aggression, e"en if you defend yourself
reasonable, still you cannot claim self-defense if you were the
cause of the aggression, because you ga"e sufficient pro"ocation.
<rinciples%
*.$ 2o pro"ocation
2.$ <erson defending himself might ha"e gi"en some
pro"ocation but it is not sufficient
.$ <erson defending himself might ha"e gi"en sufficient
pro"ocation
,ut his pro"ocation was not immediate to the act of
aggression, he can still in"oke self defense.
)here is a close co-relation between first and the
rd
element.
=>%
a$ I pro"oke ! today, but he did not react. )hen after ? mos. When
we met at San <edro St., and ! started to attack me. So I ha"e to
defend myself. Can I claim self defense1.es, since pro"ocation
was not pro>imate@immediate to the act of aggression. It is
different if I pro"oke and he reacted.
b$ , attacked and ! with a club. So , is the unlawful aggressor,
when ! fought back and , realiAed that he was wounded , ran
away. So there is no more aggression, but ! pursued , and killed
him.! cannot claim self defense since no more aggression
c$ Suppose ! was already chasing ,, , started to fight back and
killed ! since he knew that ! was determined to kill him. ! now
becomes the "ictim and , is the accused can , claim self defense.
#2o, absence of
rd
element$Was there unlawful aggression by !1
.es, he went after , to kill him #on the
rd
stage of the fight, !
was the unlawful aggressor$.
Was there lack of sufficient pro"ocation on the part of person
defending himself1 2o, why did ! want to kill him1 It was
because , wanted to kill ! at the *
st
stage of the fight. So ,+s
aggression earlier became a pro"ocation on his part in the 2
nd
stage
of the fight.
2.) DEFENSE OF RELATI3ES 4
5SPOUSE6ASCENDANTS6DESCENDANTS6BROS. 7 SIS
RELATI3ES BY AFFINITY6 WITH IN SAME DEGREE6
PARENTS4IN4LAW6 SON4IN4LAW6BROS.4IN4LAW6
RELATI3ES AND THOSE IN CONSANGUINITY WITHIN
THE FOURTH CI3IL DEGREE.
<ointers%
*.$ .our relati"e must be a "ictim of unlawful aggression if
your relati"e is the aggressor and you came to their
defense and to finish off their enemy, you cannot claim
defense of relati"es.
2.$ (se reasonable necessity of the means employed to
pre"ent and repel the aggression.
.$ I the one making the defense had no part therein
3.) DEFENSE OF STRANGERS 8 PRO3IDED THAT 1
ST
AND 2
ND
ELEMENTS OF SELF DEFENSE ARE PRESENT
AND THAT PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCE BY
RE3ENGE6 RESENTMENT OR OTHER E3IL MOTI3E.
rd element ' you were moti"ated by humanitarian sentiment and
you really did it to defend the stranger.
=>% I am looking for my enemy since I want to kill him and when
I saw him, he was attacking somebody, so I entered the scene and
killed him.2o defense of stranger.
9.) EMERGENCY RULE :STATE OF NECESSITY)
!ny person who, in order to a"oid an e"il@injury, does an act
which causes damage to another, pro"ided that the ff. are present.
*.$ ="il sought to be a"oided actually e>ist.
2.$ Injured feared be greater than that to a"oid it
.$ 2o other practical and less harmful means of pre"enting
it.
2o one can in"oke emergency rule if he brought out the
emergency himself.=>% I am o"er speeding and e"en if apply my
brakes I will still collide with the truck. #)he only justifying
circumstances where there is no crim. liab. ,ut there is ci"il liab.
Which has to be borne by the person benefited by the act$.
;.) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS!
In $%l$(llment )$ /%t,!
(se of force may be improper if person to be arrested is peacefully
surrendering.
When B tried to apprehend !, ! fought back with a sharpened
bamboo pole. B was able to e"ade the attack and ! turned around
and run away. B, a policeman, chases ! but ! continued to run
away with a bamboo pole. So B had to shoot him. B was accused
of homicide.- B is not liable since B acted in fulfillment of his
duty to arrest !.
<oliceman is going to arrest you, but you don+t gi"e up, you turn
your back and run away. )he policeman has no choice but to kill
you.- Self defense is not anymore e>isting, but he can still rely on
fulfillment of duty.
<!-. 9 is the &aw on self defense of property #<ersonal or real$--
#Boctrine of self-help$ !rt. C2D Ci"il code,.ou ha"e right to dri"e
out people who is forcibly occupying your land)he use of force
must be reasonable.
! pick pocket grabbed your watch. In order to pre"ent him from
escaping, you drew your gun and shot him in the leg. Is it
reasonable to immobiliAe him1 .=S ,ut if you shot him in the
body and killed him. Cannot in"oke self defense since no attack
on your person. It is not reasonable based on the principle that
no one is justified to take human life simply because of a property.
In e<e'+(e )$ "n )$$(+e!
=>% e>ecutioner of bilibid prison
=>ecution is at p.m do not e>ecute him at any other time.
=.) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS IN OBEDIENCE TO AN
ORDER ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR FOR SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE
--e"en if order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate
is not aware of its illegality then latter is not liable since mistake
of fact committed in good faith.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.