1. Mr. X was drinking beside the road when Mr. Y suddenly punched him. When Mr.

Y drew his
firearm, Mr. X ran away. Mr. Y shot the back Mr. X and died instantaneously. Is there self-
defense?
No. There is no self-defense. The unlawful aggression did not come from Mr. X and there was
no threat on the life and limbs of Mr. Y. Mr. Y committed a felony when he drew his firearm
and shot Mr. X. Also, there is treachery as aggravating circumstance because Mr. X was shot
at the back when he attempted to ran away.
2. Mr. X was warned that Mr. Y is coming to their house bringing a bolo and looking for him.
Mr. X waited for Mr. Y near his house and armed himself with a bolo. When Mr. Y passed by
on the way to his house, carrying a bolo, Mr. X immediately hacked him. He died before falling
to the ground. Is there self-defense?
No Self Defense as there is no unlawful aggression in the instant case. Unlawful Aggression is
an attack with physical force or with a weapon as to cause injury or danger to life or personal
safety. There is no unlawful aggression yet when Mr. Y passed by on the way to the house of
Mr. X, there is no actual attack from Mr. Y.
However, if the unlawful aggression is imminent, that is, an attack that is impending or at the
point of happening, self-defense may be appreciated. it must not consist in a mere threatening
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong.
3. Mr. Y, a construction worker, was sleeping in the labourers’ quarters. Mr. X, his workmate,
arrived and shouted, confronting Mr. Y of his missing money. Without saying anything, Mr. Y
stabbed him. But, Mr. X was quick and he was able to disarm Mr. Y. When in possession of
the weapon, he then stabbed Mr. X. In the trial, he claimed self- defense. Decide.
NO. Even if the unlawful aggression was started by Mr. Y, the moment Mr. X gained possession
of the bolo, the unlawful aggression has already ceased to exist. There was no more danger on
the life of Mr.X. so when X stabbed Y, it was not an act of retaliation which is justifying
circumstance.
4. Mr. X was at home sleeping when he heard a person entering his kitchen. He took his firearm
and waited for the person to enter his room. When the person turned the knob of the room. Mr.
X opened fire. Killing the trespasser who was armed. Is Mr. X criminally liable?
No. Mr. X is not criminally liable with Mistake of Fact as a defense (same with Achong case).
5. Mr. X was at home eating when Mr. Y kicked the door armed with a bolo. When he saw this,
Mr. X immediately grabbed his firearm, and shot Mr. Y who died instantly. Is there self-
defense?
No, there is no self-defense in the instant case. The element of reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the aggression is absent. The use of firearm is not a reasonable
mean to prevent or repel the attack of Mr. Y who was armed only with a bolo.
6. Mr. X, a lady who was studying in the library, was approached by his classmate and suddenly
touched her breast. Ms. X who is a karate master, knuckled his throat and he died. Is there self-
defense?
No, there is no self-defense, particulary defense of honor and chastity. Although, the unlawful
aggression was started by the classmate, the act of Ms. X of knuckling his throat is not a
reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression considering that they are in the library,
she should just have shouted or kicked her classmate.
7. Mr. Y, carrying a bolo, walked towards Mr. X, shouting that he would kill him. Mr. X drew
his firearm and shot Mr. Y. Is there self-defense?
Again, there is no self defense in this case. There is no unlawful aggression by Mr. Y by merely
shouting that he would kill Mr. X. The mere act of holding a bolo will not constitute imminent
and immediate danger on the life of the person unless the said bolo is aimed at the said person.
If it is just being held by a person, it will not yet produce any imminent or immediate danger.
In addition, the use of firearm is definitely not proportionate with bolo, therefore not reasonable
means to prevent the attack of Mr. Y.
8. Mr. X shouted at Mr. Y that he is gay. Mr. Y slapped Mr. X. The latter felt insulted so he drew
his weapon and stabbed Mr. Y which results to his death. Is there self-defense?.
Definitely no self-defense. All of the elements for self-defense are absent. There is no unlawful
aggression since the act of slapping did not put the victim in real peril of his life or limbs. The
use of weapon is not also a reasonable means to prevent the slapping. There is also no sufficient
provocation on the part of Mr. X.
9. Mr. X saw his wife with Mr Y inside a room naked. Mr. X attacked Mr. Y with a use of a bolo.
Mr. Y defended himself and stabbed Mr. X. Is there self defense?
No, self defense cannot be claimed by Mr. Y. The element of lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself is absent. Although there is unlawful aggression when
Mr. X attacked Mr. Y with a use of a bolo and also the act of Mr. Y of stabbing Mr. X is a
reasonable means to prevent the attack, however, there is sufficient provocation on the part of
Mr. Y when Mr. X saw him naked with Mr.Xs wife.
10. Mr. Y attacked Mr. X with the use of a bolo. Mr. X parried the attack and was able to disarm
Mr. Y, and the latter retreated. Mr. X hacked Mr. Y causing his death. Self-defense?
No self defense. Unlawful aggression has already ceased to exist when Mr. X was able to disarm
Mr. Y.
11. Mr. Y approached Mr. X bringing a bolo and shouting that he would kill him. When Mr. Y was
about 6 meters away, Mr. X quickly draw his firearm and shot the head of Mr. Y. Is there self
defense?
There is no self defense in this case. There is no unlawful aggression by Mr. Y by merely
shouting that he would kill Mr. X. The mere act of holding a bolo will not constitute imminent
and immediate danger on the life of the person unless the said bolo is aimed at the said person.
If it is just being held by a person, it will not yet produce any imminent or immediate danger.
In addition, the use of firearm is definitely not proportionate with bolo, therefore not reasonable
means to prevent the attack of Mr. Y.

12. Mr. X punched Mr. Y many times. Mr. Y retreated and got hold of a bolo and hacked Mr. X
ten times. Is there self defense?
Yes, in this case, self-defense can be invoked. First, there is unlawful aggression when Mr. X
punched Mr. Y many times, that put the life of Mr. Y in danger. Second, the use of bolo can be
a reasonable means to repel the attack since the act of punching can also be fatal. There is also
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Mr. Y. Therefore, since all the elements are present,
self-defense can be invoked by Mr. Y as justifiying circumstance.
13. Mr. Y was sitting on bench when his co-worker Mr. X mocked him saying that he is a loser.
Mr. Y picked a bolo and attacked Mr. X. Mr. X stepped back and drew his bladed weapon and
stabbed Mr. Y. Is there self defense?
Yes, there is self-defense. First, there is unlawful aggression when Mr. Y picked a bolo and
attacked Mr. X. Second, the use of the bladed weapon is a reasonable mean to prevent the
attack and last, there is lack of sufficient provocation from Mr. X. Although there is provocation
when Mr.X mocked Mr. Y, still it is not sufficient to stir a person to do the wrongful act and it
is not proportionate to the gravity of the act.
14. Mrs. X is married to Mr. Y. Most of the nights, every time he went home drank, he would beat
her. So one night, when Mr. Y went home, he called her not knowing that Mrs. X was waiting
for her with a knife. She stabbed him and he died. Defend Mrs. X.
Mrs. X is not criminally liable because she was suffering from battered woman syndrome.
Based on the facts, most of the nights when her husband went home drank, she was being beaten
by her husband.
Battered Woman Syndrome is akin to justifying. It is even better than self-defense because in
self-defense, you have to prove that the elements are present. However, in battered woman
syndrome, what should be proven is that the wife is suffering from battered woman syndrome.
It is through the expert testimony of the psychiatrist who will prove that the wife is suffering
from battered woman syndrome. If this is proven, she is absolved from criminal and civil
liability.
15. Mr. X challenged Mr. Y for a fight. Mr. Y responded and attacked Mr. X. Mr. Z, a first cousin
of Mr. X, who saw that Mr. Y is about to attack Mr. X, intervened and helped Mr. X. Mr. Z
was able to kill Mr. Y. Defend Mr. Z.
Defense of a relative can be invoked as justifying circumstance because all the elements are
present. First, there is unlawful aggression when Mr. Y attacked Mr. X. Second, there is
reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel the attack and lastly, even if it was Mr.
X, the relative who was defended by Mr.Z was the one who provoked Mr. Y, still Mr. Z, the one
making the defense took no part therein.
16. Mr. X challenged Mr. Y for a fight. Mr. Y did not mind him as he doesn’t want trouble. One
day, Mr. Y saw Mr. X and Mr. Z fighting. He noticed that Mr. Z, his friend, was about to be
overpowered by Mr. X. So, Mr. Y helped Mr. Z and he was able to kill Mr. X. Defend Mr.Y.
Defense of Stranger. First, there is unlawful aggression when Mr. X and Mr. Z was fighting.
Second, there is reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it. Lastly, Mr. X, in
defending Mr. Z was not induced by revenge, resentment or motive since prior to the incident,
when he was challenged by Mr. X for a fight, he did not mind him. Hence, present all the
elements, defense of stranger can be invoked by Mr. X
17. Mr. X who was driving his car saw an oncoming car speeding towards him. If he would his car
to the left, he would hit some pedestrian, so he swerved his car to the right but he hit the car of
Mr. Z. Defend him.
Mr X is not liable under the justifying circumstance of state of necessity. The elements are all
present. 1st, the evil sought to be avoided actually exist because there was a collision. 2nd, the
injury feared (death of some pedestrian) was greater than that done. Lastly, there was no other
practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Aside from these 3 requisites stated by the
law, it should be added that the necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of the
law by the actor.
18. Mr. X is a prisoner in City Jail. When he was about to be brought to the Court, he jumped off
the car and ran away. The jail officer fired his gun to the air to warn him but Mr. X continued
to escape. The jail officer shot at his direction and he was killed. Defend the jail officer.
The jail officer is justified in killing the prisoner. The jail officer acted in the fulfilment of his
duty and the injury caused committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of
his duty. In the case at bar, the duty of the jail officer is to bring the prisoner to the court and
since the prisoner escaped, he had to do his job to prevent the prisoner from escaping, the act
of him shooting the prisoner is considered as necessary consequence of the lawful exercise of
that duty.
19. Mr. X went inside a grocery store and took some items there without paying. When he saw that
nobody is looking, he immediately ran away with the items. But, the guard saw him bringing
the grocery items. He then shot three times to the air but Mr. X continued running. The guard
shot at him and he died. Defend the guard.
The guard is justified in killing Mr. X. The guard acted in the fulfilment of his duty and the
injury caused committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of his duty. In
the case at bar, the duty of the guard is to safeguard the grocery store from shoplifters, the act
of him shooting Mr. X is considered as necessary consequence of the lawful exercise of that
duty.
20. Mr. Y was awakened by a noise in the kitchen. When he stood up and check, he saw Mr. X
inside. He immediately took a baseball bat and hit Mr. X who was injured. Is Mr. Y justified?
No. Mr. Y is not justified. There was no self-defense in the instant case because the elements
are not present.
21. Mr. X a superior police officer ordered Mr. Y to torture Mr. A who was a suspected drug dealer.
When Mr. A was able to flee, he charged Mr. Y for serious physical injuries. Mr. Y invoked
obedience to a lawful order. Decide.
Obedience to a lawful order cannot be invoked to justify the act of Mr. Y because in the first
place, the order of Mr. X to Mr. Y to torture Mr. A was not lawful. The means used by the
subordinate to carry out said order must be lawful to justify the act.
22. A group of soldiers were ordered by their superior to attack the camp of the NPAs despite the
fact that there was a cease fire and there was an existing order from the Secretary of Defense to
halt all offenses. The soldiers who doesn’t know of the existing order attacked the camp and
many civilians died. Are the acts of the soldiers justified?
Obedience to a lawful order cannot be invoked by the soldiers to justify the acts because the
order by their superior was not lawful since there was already a ceasefire. However, the
soldiers may raise the defense that they did not know of the existing order, and they acted in
good faith.