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 vs. Responsibility
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
Guilt – the element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for consequences of
a crime unless he is guilty
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Six types of justifying circumstances
1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
Justifying circumstances – those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law,
so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both civil and
criminal liability
Basis : lack of criminal intent
a. An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof rests on the accused who must prove
the circumstance by clear and convincing evidence
b. There is no crime committed, the act being justified

SELF DEFENSE
Anyone who acted in the defense of his person or right, provided that the following circumstance
concur:
First: Unlawful aggression
Second: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it
Third: Lack of provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Elements: (URL)
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it
3. Lack of provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Unlawful aggression
- Equivalent to an actual physical assault; or threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to
cause harm

- The aggression must constitute a violation of the law. Example of lawful aggression is
(1) the act of a police throwing stones at the accused when the latter is running away

(2) act of an owner of a property using force or aggression to protect his property

- GR: when the aggression ceased to exist, there is no longer a necessity to defend one’s
self
XPN: when the aggressor retreats to obtain a more advantageous position to ensure the
success of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is deemed to continue

- There must be peril to one’s life, limb or right

Peril to one’s life
1. Actual – that the danger must be present, that is actually in existence

U.S. vs Jose Laurel: there’s ensued a fight when Laurel kissed the girlfriend of the
deceased. The deceased summoned Laure three times and thereafter struck him
with a cane or club which made Laurel dizzy and caused him to fall to the ground. As
a result, Laurel stabbed the deceased with a pocket knife.
SC ruled that the requisites of self defense are present. There is lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of Laurel and because Laurel, in defending himself with a
pocket knife against the assault made upon him with a cane, which may also be a
deadly weapon, employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the same.

2. Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the
attack already begins, for it may be too late.

People vs. Cabungcal: The deceased rocked the boat where the relatives of the
accused were riding. He asked the deceased not to do it but he was unheeded
hence he struck the deceased on the forehead and next in the neck with an oar. SC
held that all the elements of self defense is present. The conduct of the deceased in
rocking the boat until the point of it having taken water and his insistence in spite of
the accused’s warning gave rise to the belief on the part of the accused that it would
capsize if he did not separate the deceased from the boat in such a manner as to
give him no time to accomplish his purpose
Peril to one’s limb
1. There must be an actual force or actual use of weapon
-insulting words, light push on the head, mere push or shove, not followed by other
acts do not constitute unlawful aggression BUT
- a slap on the face is an unlawful aggression (Reason: the face represents a person
and his dignity, slapping it is a serious physical attack) (People vs. Sabio)
 - a playful kick at the foot by way of greeting is not a serious attack on a person’s
safety (People vs. Sabio)

- Retaliation is not self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. In self-defense,
the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense

- In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of
the deceased be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least both
acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time

People vs. Arellano: the fact that when the accused held the right hand of the deceased,
which carried the gun, the weapon fall to the floor could not be taken to mean that the
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased has ceased. The accused could not be
expected to have acted with coolness of a person under normal condition. Uppermost in
his mind at that time must have been the fact that his life was in danger and that to save
himself he had to do something to stop the aggression. He had no time or occasion for
deliberation and cool thinking because it was imperative for him to act on the spot.

- The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
No unlawful aggression when the author thereof is unknown

- A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor

- Nature, character, location and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the
injured party may belie claim of self-defense

- Agreement to fight

No unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to fight and the challenge to fight
was accepted. (Reason: where the fight is agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at
once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense because
aggression is bound to arise

XPN: aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful

One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense

- Stand ground when in the right – the law does not require him to retreat when his
assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. (Reason: if one flees
from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor)
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
1. Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity. An attempt to rape a woman
constitutes an aggression sufficient to put her in state of legitimate defense
 People vs. Jaurigue: The means employed by the accused in the defense of her honor
was evidently excessive. The chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were
already several people, including her father and the barrio lieutenant, inside the chapel.
Under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.

2. Defense of property

People vs. Apolinar: Defense of property is not of such importance as right to life, and
defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled
with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property / on the person
defending it

3. Defense of home
-threatening attitude must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the
aggressor to cause an injury

Reasonable Necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

1. There be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense
-The person defending is not expected to control his blow
-In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his
assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon
2. There be a necessity of the means used
The test of reasonableness of the means used
1. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor

- Unequal weapons must be deemed reasonable if (a) there was no other available
means or (2) if the one making a defense could not coolly choose the less deadly
weapon to repel the aggression

- Perfect equality between the weapons is not required, because the person assaulted
does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which
weapon to use. What the law requires is rational equivalence

2. Aggressor’s physical condition, character, size and other circumstances

3. Person’s defending physical condition, character, size and other circumstances
4. Place and occasion of the assault
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending
himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient;
 Mere provocation is not enough, it must be real and imminent

3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself; or
4. When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not
the proximate and immediate to the act of aggression
The provocation must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission

Battered Woman Syndrome

Battered woman – a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or
psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern for her rights

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or right of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, relatives by affinity within the same degree or
by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisite in the
next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was
given by the person attacked, and the one making the defense has no part therein
Relatives that can be defended
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
Relatives by affinity – because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and
brother and sister-in-law
Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted
in issue who is still living
Fourth civil degree – up to first cousins
Ex: husband of sister-in-law is a defense of stranger
Basis of justification: founded not only upon humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the
impulse of blood, which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of
those close to them by ties of blood
Requisites:
 1. Unlawful aggression

Unlawful aggression can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making
the defense

Ex: when the sons of A came, what they saw was that their father was lying in the mud
wounded, they believed in good faith that their father was the victim of an unlawful
aggression. If they killed B under such circumstances, they are justified. In that case,
there was a mistake of fact on the part of the sons of A.

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

The reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or

material commensurability between the means of attack and defense but the

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, and the person making the
defense had no part therein
Does not necessarily mean that the relative defended should give provocation to the
aggressor. The phrase in case means in the event that
There is still a legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has
given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the
provocation
Reason: the effect of provocation does not reach the defender, because he was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative
Taking part means induced his relative but not by resentment or motive

DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Anyone who acts in the defense of a stranger provided that the first and second requisite
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article is present and the person defending be not
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. The person defending be not induced of revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him.

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER OR EVIL INJURY

Any person, who in order to avoid an evil or injury, causes damage to another provided the
following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second: That the injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it;
Third: There is no other practical or less harmful means of preventing it

Damage to another- includes damage to person or property

The instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater
importance than that of another
The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor

There is civil liability which is to be borne by the persons benefitted. The persons for whose
benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have received

FULFILLMENT 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.
Fulfillment of a duty
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercised of a right
or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
A guard is justified in shooting an escaping prisoner BUT when the guard exceeded the
fulfillment of his duty, his act is not justified
A public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear to be an aggressor but his
aggression is not unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill his duty
If the first condition is present, but the second is not because the offender acted with culpa,
the offender will be entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. The penalty would be
reduced by one or two degrees
Lawful exercise of a right or office
Doctrine of self-help
People vs. Depante: The act of querida taking the five peso bill from the accused is an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the latter’s property. Robbery can be
even committed by a wife against her husband. Only theft, swindling and malicious mischief
cannot be committed by a wife against her husband
If the invasion is a mere disturbance of possession, force may be used against it at any time as
long as it continues however if it is a real dispossession, force to regain the possession can be
used only immediately after the dispossession

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Any person who acts in obedience to an order by a superior for some lawful purpose
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it, must be acting within the
limitations prescribed by law
When the offender is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed is criminally liable
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of
the illegality of the order and he is not negligent