Introductory Notes

Circumstances affecting criminal liability:  REASON WHY SELF-DEFENSE IS LAWFUL

1. Justifying o Classical Theory
2. Exempting  Impulse of self-preservation. Man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save
3. Mitigating his person or rights from impending danger or peril.
4. Aggravating  Lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the state to avoid
5. Alternative a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked. Thus, it
is inconceivable for the state to require that the innocent succumb to an
Imputability unlawful aggression without resistance.
- Quality by which an act ay be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. o Positivist Theory
- Implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may be  Lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social justice done to repel
put down to the doer as his very own the attack of an aggression.

Responsibility  RULES INVOLVING SELF-DEFENSE

- Obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. o Ancient common law rule
- Obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences  Retreat to the wall
IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY o New rule
A deed may be imputed to a person The person must take the consequences  Stand ground when in the right
of such deed.  Reason: when one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked
in the back by the aggressor.
Guilt
- Element of responsibility  REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE
- A man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is o There must be an unlawful aggression (sine qua non).
guilty o There is a reasonable necessity of the means employed.
o There is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.
ARTICLE 11 – Justifying Circumstances
 KINDS OF AGGRESSION
 Definition: those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so o Lawful
that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law  The fulfillment of a duty of the exercise of a right in a more or less violent
 There is no crime because the act is justified. manner.
 The circumstances are matters of defense and the burden of proof is upon the  Police officer/AFP in the fulfillment of their duty
accused.  Protection of property against unlawful taking
 Act of a person is in accordance of law.  Aggression of a spouse being cheated on
 No criminal liability.  Article 429
 No civil liability EXCEPT paragraph 4 who shall be borne by the persons benefited by  The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
the act. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such
 BASIS – the law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating “do not force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
incur any criminal liability” threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
o No need that an aggression be committed on the person.
 SELF-DEFENSE GENERAL RULE o Unlawful
o Where the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear  Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and
and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. imminent kind. (People v. Alconga)
o He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the  There is unlawful aggression when: the peril to one’s life, limb, or right is either
prosecution. actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of
o It is not a convincing evidence if: weapon. (People v. Crisostomo)
 Uncorroborated by a separate and competent evidence  There must be an actual physical assault upon a person or at least a threat to
 Defense interpolated is extremely doubtful in itself inflict real injury.
 Refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very
 RIGHTS INVOLVED IN SELF-DEFENSE least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening
o Defense of the person or body stance or posture.
o Defense of his rights, the enjoyment of which are protected by law
  There must be an offensive act positively determining the intent of the  Because the face represents a person and his dignity. Slapping is a physical
aggressor to cause an injury. assault and a defiance of an individual’s personality.
 An offensive and positively strong act showing the wrongful intent of the
 PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE aggressor to cause an injury e.g.
o Actual  One aims a revolver at another with the intent of shooting him
 Danger must be present  Act of a person in retreating two steps and placing his hand in his pocket
 Must actually be in existence with a motion indicating his purpose to commit an assault
o Imminent  Act of opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack
 Danger is on the point of happening  When intent to attack is manifest and thereafter picks up a weapon
 It is not required that the attack already begins. o Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient to call for an exercise of self-
defense but may be considered in certain instances e.g.
 PERIL TO ONE’S LIMB  Silencer was running towards Mars with a gun. Mars, who was bringing with
o Includes peril to the safety of one’s person from physical injuries him a bolo, struck Silencer and thereby killing him. Silencer was merely bringing
a gun loaded with powder but Mars was acquitted by virtue of self-defense
 WHAT MAY BELIE THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE because the belief of an impending attack was considered sufficient given the
o Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted circumstances.
by the injured party.  There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol provided that the
o Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor. accused believed it was a real gun
o When the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a o Retaliation is not self-defense.
policeman  The aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
o Physical fact. when the accused attacked him.
 Example. Shaman, the accused, claimed that Ember stabbed him in front but  When the lawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill
Shaman’s stab wounds were at the back. or wound the former aggressor.
 In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
 AGREEMENT TO FIGHT injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
o Does not constitute unlawful aggression  Example:
o Or if there was a challenge, the second person must have had the chance to  Retaliation. Axe inflicted slight physical injuries to Slardar without the
clearly accept the challenge. Otherwise, it may be an unlawful aggression. intention to inflict other injuries. Slardar then attacked Axe thereafter.
o Reason:  Self-defense. When Luna was about to strike Mirana, Mirana, in order to
 Where the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once assailant prevent or repel the blows, stabs the former with her arrows. The act of
and assaulted and neither can invoke the right of self-defense because striking is an unlawful aggression which may justify the use of arrows if the
aggression, which is an incident in the fight, is bound to arise from one or the arrows were the only reasonable means of repelling the blow.
other. o Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression, the necessity for the person
o Exception to this rule invoking self-defense to attack his adversary ceases.
 Aggression which ahead of the stipulated time and place is considered unlawful o When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists. EXCEPT:
aggression.  If the aggressor retreats to take a more advantageous position to insure the
success of the attack. Thus, unlawful aggression continues to exist and the
 OTHER NOTES one making a defense has a right to pursue and disable him.
o The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force
o The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by the defendant
or with actual use of weapon.
should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time.
o What is NOT unlawful aggression  The accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking.
 Insulting words o The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the
 Light push on the head with a hand
accused.
 Shove
o A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
 Foot-kick greeting  Example
 Intimidating or threatening attitude
 A sheriff who exceeded his authority by taking against the will of the
 Agreement to fight which constitutes
judgment debtor personal property with sentimental value even though
 Clear agreement to fight
other personal property, sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, was
o What is unlawful aggression made available to the sheriff. The debtor then has the right to repel the
 Slap to face aggression of the sheriff.
 o One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense because there is no defense PROVIDED THAT there is no proof that the minor injuries contributed
unlawful aggression to speak of. to or hastened the death of the accused.
o Presumption in determining the unlawful aggressor  This rule does not apply if the deceased dropped his weapon and signified his
 The person who has deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed refusal to fight before he was hacked to death because the hacking transpired
he had a right to demand explanation of the perpetrator of that insult and the after he deceased surrendered, which was the proximate cause of his death.
one who also struck the first blow when he was not satisfied with the o The person defending is not expected to control his blow because he cannot be
explanation offered. expected to think clearly so as to control his blow.
o Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary, including an aggression that is o Measure of rational necessity is to be found in the situation as it appeared to the
expected provided that it is imminent. person defending at the time when the blow was struck.
o Flight is incompatible with self-defense because it is indicatory of guilt. o The person defending must aim at his assailant and not indiscriminately fire his
weapon.
 UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS
o Requires the first two requisites of self-defense NECESSITY OF THE MEANS USED
 There must be an unlawful aggression (sine qua non).
 There is a reasonable necessity of the means employed. o The means must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful
o Examples aggression.
 Right to chastity in the attempt to rape someone o Test of reasonableness of the means used
 Defense of property  Nature and quality of the weapon
 Requires that there be an attack on the person protecting the property.  Limitations of weapons used
 Defense of home o There were other means
o If there were other means, he could coolly choose
 SECOND REQUISITE DISCUSSION: “Reasonable necessity of the means deployed o If the assailant uses fist blows, defender must repel the attack with fists
to prevent or repel it.” too provided that they are both of the same size and strength.
 Aggressor’s physical condition, character, size, other circumstances
TO PREVENT TO REPEL  Defender’s physical condition, character, size, etc.
Danger is imminent Danger is actual  Place
 Occasion
We prevent the aggression that We repel the aggression that places
o Perfect equality between the weapon used by the person defending and that of the
places us in imminent danger. us in actual danger.
aggressor is not required. What the law requires is RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE.
A threat to inflict real injury places us An actual physical assault places us
 Ratio: the person assaulted does not the tranquility of mind to think and choose
in imminent danger in actual danger.
which weapon to use.
o The principal factors of rational equivalence, which rests upon the imminent danger
o The second requisite means that…and both must be reasonable. of the defender are:
 There be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making the
 Emergency
defense  The imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed
 There be a necessity of the means used
 Instinct that impels the defense
 Proportionateness upon the imminent danger
NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN o The reasonable necessity of the means used must be liberally construed in favor
of law-abiding citizens.
o Test of the necessity of the course of action taken: o Exception to the rule: Peace Officer
 Necessity  The duty of a peace officer requires that he OVERCOME the aggressor, not
 Place merely prevent or repel it.
 Occasion
 Other circumstances  THIRD REQUISITE DISCUSSION
o When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after unlawful aggression has o In the first type of self-defense: “Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
ceased to exist, there is still self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time person defending himself.”
the requisites of self-defense were present  Reason: If the person defending gave sufficient provocation to the aggressor,
 If minor physical injuries were inflicted after the unlawful aggression had ceased he is also to be blamed.
AND after the accused has inflicted mortal wounds DURING the time when the o The third requisite is present if:
requisites were present, the minor injuries cannot negate the defense of self-  No provocation at all
 Provocation is not sufficient by the defender
  Sufficient provocation was given by someone else  Impulse of blood
 Sufficient provocation given by the defender is not proximate and immediate to o Requisites
the act of aggression  Unlawful aggression
o It is not necessary for the provocation to be sufficient that the one who gave it must  Reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it
have been an unlawful aggressor himself.  The one making a defense did not take part in the provocation
o How to determine the sufficiency of provocation o People v. Moro Munabe
 Proportionate to the act of aggression  When two persons are getting ready to strike each other and a relative of either
 Adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission butts in, they cannot claim that they were merely defending their relative.
 Verbal argument is NOT sufficient provocation. o If the accused appears to be the aggressor, he cannot invoke the defense of having
o There is sufficient provocation when acted in defense of a relative.
 One challenges the deceased to come out of the house and engage in a fit fight o Unlawful aggression can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one
 One hurls insults or imputes to another the utterance of vulgar language making a defense
 One tries to forcibly kiss someone
 DEFENSE OF STRANGER
 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME o Requisites
o RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004”  Unlawful aggression
 Section 26: those with the syndrome do no incur criminal and civil liability  Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying  Must not be induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive
circumstances. In the determination of the syndrome, the courts shall be o The third requisite requires that the defense must be actuated by a disinterested
assisted by expert psychiatrist/psychologist. or generous motive.
o Ratio: there is a justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically o Basis: in US v. Aviado
abused and controlled over a period of time.  What one may do in his defense, another may do for him.
o Battered woman  The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed
 One who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological without attempting to save his life.
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
o Who are deemed strangers?
without concern for her rights.
 Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in
 Undergoes two battering cycles: two subsequent relationships where she is
paragraph 2 is considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3
battered.
 She usually believes that she is the sole anchor of the emotional stability of her
partner. She feels responsible for her well-being.
 Characterized by a cycle of violence
 Tension-building phase (verbal, slight physical abuse) PARAGRAPH 4: Avoidance of greater evil or injury.
 Acute battering incident (brutality, destructiveness, death)
 Tranquil, loving, non-violent phase Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present:
 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
o Who can be defended
 Spouse Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
 Ascendants Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
 Descendants
 Legitime, natural, or adopted siblings or relatives by affinity in the same degrees Notes:
 Parents-in-law o Damage must cover injury to persons and damage to property.
 Brother/sister-in-law o Only applicable when evil must actually exist. Not applicable if the evil sought to be
 Son/daughter-in-law avoided is merely expected or anticipated.
 Even if the spouse dies, the affinity survives. o The evil which must be avoided and brought about the greater evil must not be a
 Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree result from a violation of law by the one invoking this defense.
 Siblings (second) o There is civil liability under paragraph 4.
 Uncle/aunt/niece/nephew (third)  Civil liability is borne by the persons benefited.
 First cousins (fourth)  Persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly liable
o Ratio in proportion to the benefit which they may have received (Art. 101 RPC).
 Humanitarian sentiment
Paragraph 5: Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office.
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
o Requisites:
 Accused acted in the performance of a duty/ lawful exercise of a right or office
 Injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of due
performance of duty
o Shooting of prisoner by guard must be in self-defense or be absolutely necessary
to avoid his escape.
o Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified.
o But shooting a thief who refused to be arrested is not justified.
o Defense of fulfillment of duty when such is an illegal performance of duty shall not
be justified.
 An officer making a lawful arrest is justified to use such force as may be
necessary but he is not justified to use unnecessary force, wanton violence, or
dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
o Difference with others:
 An officer acting in fulfillment of a duty may appear to be an aggressor but his
aggression is not unlawful.
 In self-defense, the aggression of the aggressor was unlawful.

Paragraph 6: Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
o Requisites:
 Order has been issued by a superior
 Such order must be for lawful purpose
 Means used by the subordinate in carrying out is lawful
- Both the superior and subordinate must be acting within the limitations
prescribed by law.
o When order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed is criminally
liable.
o Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he’s not aware of the
illegality and he’s not negligent.

II. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (NON-IMPUTABILITY)

Definition: those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the
agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent
Basis: complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or in the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused