NNOTATION

SELF-DEFENSE

By

ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*

_____________________

The petitioner in the above-entitled case was convicted of Homicide by the Regional Trial Court Judge
Armando A. Yanga of Baler, Aurora and whose decision was affirmed with modification by the Court of
Appeals, hence this petition for review on certiorari.

The petitioner contended that “the Honorable Court of Appeals failed to appreciate initial facts which, if
considered, would probably alter the result of this case on appeal finding appellant’s plea of self-
defense.”

Self-defense is one of those enumerated under justifying circumstances in Article 11, No. 1.

Before delving deeper into the intricacies of self-defense, the writer found it imperative to define
justifying circumstances.

Luis B. Reyes in his book, Criminal Law, Book I, 1977 edition, page 153, defines justifying circumstances
as “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. Said person is not a criminal because no crime is committed. He is free
from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except in paragraph 4 of Article 11, where
the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.”

_______________

* Law Professor, University of Pangasinan and Consultant and Professorial Lecturer, UST Graduate
School of Law.
715

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 19, 2004

715

Self-Defense

Basis of Justifying Circumstances. The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by expressly stating in
the opening sentence of Article 11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any criminal
liability.”

The Law

Article 11. Justifying.—The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstance concur:

     First.

Unlawful aggression;

     Second.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

     Third.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Rights Included in Self-Defense

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of
his rights, that is, those rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law.

“Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of one person, we have the right to
honor which is not the least prized of man’s patrimony.” (1 Viada, 172, 173, 5th edition.)

Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful.

It would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even
foreigners), of course and offer protection to the person unjustly attached, on the other hand, it cannot
be conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression without offering any resistance.
(Guevarra, cited by Reyes, supra)

716

716

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Self-Defense

A.Unlawful Aggression

The first requisite/element of self-defense is unlawful aggression: It presupposes an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof (Tangan vs. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA 119 [2002]), and
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Mere apprehension that the supposed aggressor
would shoot the person invoking self-defense is not justified. (People vs. Adlawan, 375 SCRA 188 [2002];
People vs. Saure, 379 SCRA 128 [2002]; People vs. Trapane, 388 SCRA 97 [2002]; People vs. San Juan,
386 SCRA 400 [2002]; Ureta vs. People, 387 SCRA 359 [2002])

The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of
weapon. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful
aggression against the person defending himself. (Tangan vs. People, supra; People vs. Flores, G.R. No.
138841, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 332 [2001])

In self-defense, unlawful aggression is primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden unexpected

attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person—not a mere threatening or intimidating
attitude, but, most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggression.
(People vs. Zeta, 382 SCRA 141 [2002])

Aggression, to be unlawful, must be actual and imminent, such that there is a real threat of bodily harm
to the person resorting to self-defense or to others whom that person is seeking to defend. (People vs.
Magnabe, 386 SCRA 351 [2002])

When the deceased laid down his gun, unlawful aggression had already ceased and it was no longer
necessary for accused appellant to have fired successively, the way he did at the victim. Such act of
accused-appellant can no longer be interpreted but a perverse desire to kill. (People vs. Rabanal, 387
SCRA 685 [2002]; People vs. Real, 308 SCRA 244 [1999])

717

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 19, 2004

717

Self-Defense

To exculpate an accused from any criminal liability on the ground of self-defense, the burden of proof
shifts to the accused. He must prove the three elements to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the case of People vs. Alba, 375
SCRA 69, 74 [2002], the Supreme Court held:

“After careful consideration of the evidence on record, we are convinced that unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim has not been shown. Appellant failed to overcome the evidence of the prosecution
that appellant stabbed the victim, Ricky Aguilar, from behind without any provocation at all. His claim
that he had a frontal encounter with the victim was belied by witnesses Aniñon and Ybasan, who
testified that they saw appellant suddenly stab the victim from behind, with the knife penetrating from
the back to the victim’s front chest, on the right side. We note that although Ricardo Imbo, a bystander
at the scene of the crime, tried to corroborate Alba’s stay, the trial court was unimpressed. Instead, the
court gave credence to the testimony of prosecution witnesses Aniñon and Ybasan. The assessment of
the trial court is generally received with great respect and is conclusive on appeal, bearing any showing
of any arbitrariness or oversight of material facts that could change the result. For it is the trial judge
who directly observed the witness on the stand and could detect from their conduct “the furtive lie that
will expose the hidden truth.” (People vs. Dela Cruz, 227 SCRA 278, 283 [1993], cited in the case of
People vs. Alba, supra)

In determining the existence of unlawful aggression that induced a person to take a course of action, the
place and occasion of the assault and other circumstances like the darkness of the night and the surprise
which characterized the assault must be considered. (Reyes, RPC, supra.)

The Test of Reasonableness of the Means Used

Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality of the
weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other

718

718

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Self-Defense

circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the
assault.

Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor 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. (People vs. Padua, C.A. 400 OG 998 cited by Reyes,
supra)
B.Reasonable Necessity of the Means to Prevent or Repel it

The second element of self-defense is reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it.

This second requisite means that (1) there be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person
making the defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the means used. Both must be reasonable. (Reyes,
Revised Penal Code Annotated, supra)

The reasonableness of either or both such necessity depends on the existence of unlawful aggression
and extent of the aggression, the reasonableness of the necessity to take a course of action, and the
reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed depend upon the circumstances of the case.
(Reyes, supra)

The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel
an unlawful aggression. Whether or not the means employed is reasonable will depend upon the nature
and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition character, size and other
circumstances and those of the person, defending himself as well as the place and occasion of the
assault. (People vs. Rabanal, 387 SCRA 685 [2002])

What the law requires is a rational equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal
factors, the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct
more than reason that moves or

719

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 19, 2004

719

Self-Defense

impels the defense; and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but upon
the imminent danger of such injury. In other words, whether or not the means employed is reasonable
will depend upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition,
character, size, and other circumstances and those of the person defending himself as well as the place
and occasion of the assault. (People vs. Rabanal, supra)

In the case of People vs. Mahilum, 390 SCRA 91 [2002], the Supreme Court held:

“Self-defense is induced by necessity. Yet, nowhere in appellant’s version was hard-pressed to defend
himself. There was no proof at the all that his life was placed in danger, or that circumstances existed
that called for stabbing the victim with a deadly weapon. Taken in the light of the testimonies of
eyewitnesses Perolino and Aviles, we find appellant’s evidence utterly inadequate to prove that he was
justified in killing Pableo Fernandez.”

C.Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part of the Person Defending Himself

This third requisite of “lack of sufficient provocation” refers to the person defending himself. Thus, if the
accused appears to be the aggressor, it cannot be said that he was defending himself from the effect of
another’s aggressions. (People vs. Espino, et al., 43 O.G. 47705 cited by Reyes, supra)

The person claiming the benefit of the justifying circumstance under No. 1 of said Article 11, must show
that he had not given sufficient provocation as to cause the attackers to commit unlawful aggression.
Such provocation, however, must immediately precede the aggression. In one case, “the accused and his
son’s widow had been sustaining amorous relation previous to the day of the occurrence. On that day,
the woman was in the house of her mother. In the evening the accused arrived in the barrio and
obtained lodging in the same house. At about midnight, the accused woke up and moved over to the
place where the woman was sleeping. The

720

720

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Self-Defense
latter, either because she was unable to recognize her paramour due to darkness or because of surprise,
shouted for help saying that someone wanted to abuse her. The deceased, who was living with her
mother, hearing the shout, arose and engaged the accused in a fight. The accused succeeded in felling
the deceased but he immediately stood up, got hold of a bolo and ran after the accused who tried to
escape through a door. The deceased was able to intercept the accused. As the accused approached, the
deceased struck at him with bolo, but the accused was able to dodge the bolo and he stabbed the
deceased. Charged with homicide, the accused pleaded self-defense. The Court of Appeals rejected the
plea of complete self-defense. Instead, the accused was given the benefit of incomplete self-defense.”
(Kapunan, Criminal Law, Central Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc., 1993, pp. 70-71.)

Conclusion

After an incisive analysis of the elements of self-defense one can conclude that self-defense like alibi, is
defense which can easily be concocted. (People vs. Bonifacio, 376 SCRA 134 [2002])

It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted fatal injuries on
the deceased, it is incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying
circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the
weakness of the prosecution, but on the strength of his own evidence, “for even if the evidence of the
prosecution were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself admitted the killing.”
(People vs. Bonifacio, supra)

Self-defense must be established as convincingly as possible (People vs. Javier, 377 SCRA 300 [2002])
although the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, this rule is reversed where
the accused interposes self-defense. The burden is shifted to the accused to prove the following
elements of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on

Self-Defense, 440 SCRA 714, October 19, 2004