You are on page 1of 5

I. Unlawful Aggression *People v. Geneblazo, 361 SCRA 572 *People v. Dagani, G.R.No.

153875, August
Equivalent to assault or at least *Sanchez v. People, G.R.No. 161007, 16, 2006
threatened assault of an immediate December 6, 2006 *People v. Ubaldo, 367 SCRA 432
and imminent kind
II. Reasonable necessity RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
An attack that has actually broken
out or materialized or at the very WHAT IS REASONABLE? The person assaulted does not have
least is clearly imminent sufficient tranquility of mind to
CANNOT consist in oral threats or There be a necessity of the course think and to calculate
merely threatening stance posture of action taken by the person
making a defense *People v. Rabanal, 387 SCRA 85
INDISPENSABLE There be a necessity of the means *People v. Palaganas, G.R.No.165483,
used September 12, 2006
The presence of unlawful aggression
It depends on the existence of
is a condition sine qua non RETALIATION v SELF DEFENSE
unlawful aggression and upon the
*Palagnas vpeople, 501 SCRA 533 nature and extent of the aggression
*People v Beltran, GR No. 168051 RETALIATION SELF DEFENSE
*Cano v People, 413 SCRA 92 NOTE: the reasonableness of the necessity Aggression that Aggression was
depends upon the circumstances was begun by the still existing when
injured party the aggressor was
MEANS (PINES) exist when the by person making
Actual that the danger must be present, accused attacked a defense
that is, actually in existence 1. Presence of imminent danger him
2. Emergency to which the person NOT a justifying
Imminent that the danger is on point of defending himself has been exposed circumstance
happening. It is not required that the to
attack already begins, for it may be too 3. Nature and quality of the weapon
late used by the accused compared to *U.S. v. Carrero, 9 Phil 544
*Senoja v. People, 440 SCRA 695
the weapon of the aggression
*People v Cabungcal, 51 PHIL 803
4. Impelled by the instinct of self-
MUST BE REAL AND NOT IMAGINARY preservation III. Lack of Sufficient Provocation
5. Size and/or physical character of Sufficient provocation should not
*People v Arnante, 391 SCRA 155 the aggressor compared to the come from the person defending
*People v CA accused and other circumstances himself/accused, and it must
that can be considered showing immediately precede the aggression
disparity between aggressor and
accused Not given cause for aggression by virtue
*People v. San Juan, 386 SCRA 400 of unjust conduct
psychological behavior by a man in order to first cousins are within fourth civil
*Rimano v. People, 416 SCRA 569 coerce her to do something he wants her degree
to do without concern for her rights NOTE: the justification of defense of
Provocation by the person claiming self- relatives is founded not only upon
defense, if any, must not be the Cycle of Violence humanitarian sentiment, but also the
proximate or immediate cause of the impulse of blood which impels men to rush,
victims aggression 1. The tension-building phase minor on occasion of great perils to the rescue of
battering occurs those close to them
*People v. Annibong, 403 SCRA 92 2. The acute battering incident
brutality, destructiveness and There is still legitimate defense of
sometime death; she has no control relative if the relative being
Concepts of provocation in the RPC 3. The tranquil, loving phase couple defended has given provocation,
experience profound relief; the provided that the one defending has
*People v. CA, 352 SCRA 59 batterer makes up for his mistakes no part in the provocation

***Battered Woman Syndrome *People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 Elements

Secs. 3 & 26, RA 9262 AVAWC Act of *People v. Mendez, 387 SCRA 294
Unlawful Aggression (See Art.11[1], RPC)
Evidence must be considered in the What may be defended? Defense of
context of self-defense body/person or rights: *Balunueco v. CA, 401 SCRA 76

SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as - Spouse Reasonable Necessity (See Art.11[1],
a Defense. Victim-survivors who are - Ascendants RPC)
found by the courts to be suffering from - Descendants
battered woman syndrome do not incur any - Legitimate, natural or adobped Person defending had no part in
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding brothers and sisters or relatives by provoking the victim
the absence of any of the elements for affinity in the same degrees
justifying circumstances of self-defense - Relative by consanguinity within the NOTE: the fact that the relative defended
under the Revised Penal Code. 4th civil degree gave provocation is immaterial, it is found
not only upon a humanitarian sentiment,
Relatives by affinity but also upon the impulse of blood which
In the determination of the state of mind
- Because of marriage, are parents- impels man to rush, on the occasion of
of the woman who was suffering from
in-law son or daughter and brother great perils, to the rescue of those close to
battered woman syndrome at the time of
or sister-in-law them by ties of blood
the commission of the crime, the courts
shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ Relatives by consanguinity
- Consanguinity refers to blood DEFENSE OF STRANGER
relatives. Brothers and sisters are
within the second civil degree; What may be defended? Defense of
Battered woman woman who is
uncle and niece or aunt and nephew body/person or rights
repeatedly subjected to any forceful or
are within third civil degree; and
Stranger any person NOT included in the *People v. Ricohermoso, 56 SCRA 431
enumeration of relatives mentioned above. Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Elements:
Hence, even a close friend is a stranger Right (Art.11[5], RPC) 1. That an order has been issued by a
Elements 2. That such order must be for some
*People v. Dijan, 383 SCRA 15 Elements: lawful purpose
3. That the means used bythe
1. Unlawful Aggression (See Art.11[1], *Mamangun v. People, G.R.No.149152, subordinate to carry out said order
RPC) February 2, 2007 is lawful
2. Reasonable Necessity (See *Angcaco v. People, 378 SCRA 297
Art.11[1], RPC) *People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566
3. Person defending is not induced *People v. Rogado, 106 Phil 816
1. The accused acted in the lawful
by resentment, revenge or other
evil motive performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of such right

* Cabuslay v. People, G.R.No. 129875,

*People v. Peralta, 350 SCRA 198
September 30, 2005.

Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury (Art. 2. The injury or offense committed

be the necessary consequence of
11[4], RPC)
the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right
Elements :
or office
1. Actual existence of the evil sought
to be avoided; not *Baxinela v. People, 485 SCRA 331
expected/anticipated *People v. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688
2. Injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it. ***Distinguished from Self-Defense
3. No other practical and less harmful different principles, elements
means of preventing it
Fulfillment of duty to prevent the
NOTE: it is only in this part that the person escape of a prisoner is different
defending himself incurs civil liability, from self-defense, because they are
since generally in this article there is no
civil liability on the part of the accused. based on different principles
Such liability is borne by the person
Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324
Obedience to Lawful Order of a Superior
*Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220
(Art.11[6], RPC)
Exempting Circumstances (Art.12, RPC) INSANITY b. Over fifteen (15) to eighteen (18)
At the time of the Exempt from years of ageexempted, unless
Those grounds for exemption from commission of the liability with discernment (Sec.6, par.2,
punishment, because there is crime RA 9344). If exemptIntervention
wanting in the agent of the crime During trial Proceeding will be Program (Sec.20, RA 9344); If not
any of the conditions which makes suspended and exemptappropriate proceedings
the act voluntary, or negligent accused is under RA 9344
There is a crime but NO criminal committed to a
The burden of proof to prove the hospital
existence of an exempting After judgment or Execution of DISCERNMENT It is the mental capacity
circumstance lies with the defense while serving judgment is to understand the difference between right
BASIS: the exemption from punishment is sentence suspended; the and wrong as determined by the childs
based on the complete absence of accused is appearance, attitude , comportment and
intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, committed to a behavior not only before and during the
or on the absence of negligence on the hospital. The period
part of the accused commission of the offense but also after
of confinement in
the hospital is and during the trial. It is manifested
Imbecility (Art.12[1], RPC) counted for the through
It exist when a person, while of purpose of the
advanced age has a mental prescription of the i. Manner of committing the crime
development comparable to that of penalty ii. Conduct of the offender
children between two and 7 years
of age c. Eighteen (18) years or under
*People v. Valledor, 383 SCRA 653 exempt from prosecution for:
*People v. Ambal, 100 SCRA 325 *People v. Robinos, 382 SCRA 751
*People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658 Vagrancy & Prostitution (Art.202,
Minority Art.12[2], RPC RPC)
Mendicancy (PD 1563)
Insanity, unless the crime was committed *Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116
during a lucid interval Art.12[1], RPC Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
*Llave v. People, 488 SCRA 376)
But must undergo appropriate
Complete deprivation of counseling and treatment program
intelligence at the time of **Modified by RA 9344 JJWA, Eff.: April
Accidentmeaning; rationale for
commission 28, 2006
Dementia Praecox is covered by the term a. Fifteen (15) years of age or
Accident occurrence that happens
insanity underexempted (Sec.6, par.1,
outside the sway of our will, and although
RA 9344); Intervention Program
it comes about through some act of our
BASIS: complete absence of intelligence (Sec.20, RA 9344)
will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanity
foreseeable consequences
BASIS: lack of negligence and intent *U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350
*People v. Loreno, 130 SCRA 311
*Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94
Uncontrollable fear (6)
Elements 1. that the threat which causes the
fear is of an evil greater than or
*People v. Concepcion, 386 SCRA 74 least equal to, that which he is
required to commit
1. Accused is performing a lawful act 2. that it promises an evil of such
with due care gravity and imminence that the
2. Injury is caused by mere accident ordinary man would have
3. Accused had neither fault nor succumbed
intent to cause injury BASIS: the exemption is base on the
complete absence of freedom
Irresistible force (5) Actus me invite factus non est meus
actus An act done by me against
Elements: my will is not my act

1. that the compulsion is by means of Uncontrollable fear the offender

physical force employs intimidation or threat in
2. that the physical force must be compelling another to commit a crime
3. that the physical force must come *Ty v. People, supra.
*U.S. v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil 339
from a third person
*People v. Borja, 91 SCRA 340
BASIS: the exemption is base on the
Lawful or insuperable cause (7)
complete absence of freedom, an element
of voluntariness Elements:
1. That an act is required by law to be
NOTE: before a force can be considered to done
be an irresistible ne, it must produce such 2. That a person fails to perform such
an effect upon the individual that, in spite act
of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere 3. That his failure to perform such act
instrument and, as such, incapable of was due to some lawful or
inseparable cause
committing a crime
BASIS: the exemption is base on lack of
passion and obfuscation CANNOT be criminal intent
irresistible force
*U.S. v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil 118
*People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530