CHAPTER 2

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
THE CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ARE:
1. Justifying circumstances (Art 11)
2. Exempting circumstances (Art 12) and other absolutory causes (Arts. 20;124, last par.;332;334;etc.)
3. Mitigating circumstances (Art 13)
4. Aggravating circumstances (Art 14)
5. Alternative circumstances
Imputability the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act
committed has been freely and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the doer as his very own.
Responsibility the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and
civil consequences of the crime.
Imputability, distinguished from responisibility
While imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies that the person must take
the consequence of such a deed.
Meaning of guilt
Guilt is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he
is guilty.
I.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

They are:
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Fulfilment of duty or exercise of right of office
6. Obedience to an order of a superior
There is no crime committed, the act being justified
Such persons are not criminals, as there is no crime
committed.
Burden of Proof
The circumstances mention in Article 11 are matters of
defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in order
to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying
circumstances claimed by him to the satisfaction of the
court.
Basis: LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT
Self-defense
- To prove by clear and convincing evidence
- The burden of proof rests upon the accused
- The accused must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of that
for the prosecution.

Rights included in self-defense

- Includes not only the defense of the person or
body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by
law. It includes:
a. The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face
is considered as unlawful aggression since the
face represents a person and his dignity. (Rugas
vs, People)
b. The defense of property rights can be invoked
if there is an attack upon the property although
it is not coupled with an attack upon the person
of the owner of the premises. All the elements
for justification must however be present.
(People v. Narvaez)
Reasons why penal law makes self-defense lawful.
- The law on self-defense embodied in any enal
system in the civilized world finds justification in
mans natural instinct to protect, repel, and save
his person or rights from impending danger or
peril;
- It is based on that impulse of self-preservation
- To the Classicists 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 person unlawfully attacked

Elements or Requisites of Self-defense

Mere belief of an impending attach is not sufficient
1.

Unlawful aggression

Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite

The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition

sine qua non.
Aggression must be unlawful

There are two kinds of aggression: (1)lawful and

(2)unlawful
Meaning of unlawful aggression
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.
There is an unlawful aggression when the peril to ones
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
There must be actual physical assault upon a person, or
at least a threat to inflict real injury.

Foot-kick greeting is not an unlawful aggression

- It may be a mere slight provocation
No unlawful aggression, because there was no
imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the
accused
A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount
to an unlawful aggression
- Should be considered only as a provocation
mitigating is liability
Retaliation is not self-defense
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an
aggressor who is retreating from fray

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and

unexpected attack , or imminent danger thereof, and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the

deceased by defendant should succeed each pther
without appreciable interval time.
- Must have no time nor occasion for deliberation
and cool thinking

It cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening

stance or posture.

The unlawful aggression must come from the person

who was attacked by the accused.

When there is no peril to ones life, limb, or right, there

is no unlawful aggression.

A public officer exceeding his authority may become an

unlawful aggressor

Peril to ones life

Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the

accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may
belie claim of self-defense

1. Actual that danger must be present, that is

actually in existence
2. Imminent that the danger is on the point of
happening.
Peril to ones limb
- There is danger only to his limb
- Peril to the safety of ones person from physical
injuries
There must be actual force or actual use of weapon
- Insulting words, light push and a mere push or
shove, not followed by acts, does not constitute
unlawful aggression.
Reasons why slap on the face constitutes unlawful
aggression
- Since the face represents a person and his
dignity

Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor

belies claim of self-defense
The fact that the accussed declined to give any
statement when he surrendered to a policeman is
inconsistent with the plea of self-defense
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted
in self-defense
- The physical fact belies the claim of self-defense
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no
longer exists

When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no

longer exists.
- The one making a defense has no more right to
kill or even to wound the former aggressor
No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to
fight
- The aggression would be reciprocal and legitimate
as between two contending parties
- There is agreement to fight in this case
- The challenge to fight must be accepted
Reason: The fight is bound to rise from one or the
other of the combatants.
Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and
place is unlawful
One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim selfdefense
The rule now is stand ground when in the right.
How to determine the unlawful aggressor
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
- Attempt to rape a woman defense of right to
chastity
- Defense of property
- Defense of home
The belief of the accused may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression
There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy
pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real gun
Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression
- Not unlawful aggression, because it is required
that the act be offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury.
Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression
- In order to consider that unlawful aggression was
actually committed, it is necessary that an attack
or material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to cause
an injury shall have been made.
Examples of threats to inflict real injury
1. Aiming a revolver at another with an intention to
shoot
2. Retreating two steps and placing his hand in his
pocket with a motion indicating his purpose to
commit an assault with a weapon

3. Opening a knife and making a motion as if to

make an attack
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is
sufficient unlawful aggression
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary
- Or, at least, imminent
Aggression that is expected

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to

prevent or repel it