Source: https://www.manilatimes.

net/2018/10/27/legal-advice/dearpao/self-

defense-as-justifying-circumstance/457736

Self-defense is a justifying circumstance which is governed by Article 11 of

the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

“The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided the following

circumstances 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.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”.

Since you are invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, it is

essential that you must first establish the presence of an unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim. This element, however, is lacking based from the

facts you have provided.

In a similar case decided by the court entitled Palaganas vs. People of

thePhilippines (GR 165483, Sept. 12, 2006), the Supreme Court through

Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario stated:

“Assuming, arguendo, that the Ferrer brothers had provoked the petitioner to

shoot them by pelting the latter with stones, the shooting of the Ferrer

brothers is still unjustified. When the Ferrer brothers started throwing stones,

petitioner was not in a state of actual or imminent danger considering the

wide distance (4-5 meters) of the latter from the location of the former.

Petitioner was not cornered nor trapped in a specific area such that he had no

way out, nor was his back against the wall. He was still capable of avoiding

the stones by running away or by taking cover. He could have also called or
proceeded to the proper authorities for help. Indeed, petitioner had several

options in avoiding dangers to his life other than confronting the Ferrer

brothers with a gun.

The fact that petitioner suffered injuries in his left leg and left shoulder,

allegedly caused by the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers, did not signify

that he was a victim of unlawful aggression or that he acted in self-defense.

There was no evidence to show that his wounds were so serious and severe.

The superficiality of the injuries of the petitioner was no indication that his

life and limb were in actual peril.

Petitioner’s assertion that, despite the fact that he fired a warning shot, the

Ferrer brothers continued to pelt him with stones, would not exonerate him

from criminal liability. Firing a warning shot was not the last and only option

he had in order to avoid the stones thrown by the Ferrer brothers. As stated

earlier, he could have run away, or taken cover, or proceeded to the proper

authorities for help. Petitioner, however, opted to shoot the Ferrer brothers.”

Applying the above-quoted decision to your situation, the victim’s act of

throwing a stone at you would not have placed your life in actual or imminent

danger and you can still avoid the same by running away, taking cover or by

seeking help from the authorities. Such act of the victim does not constitute
the unlawful aggression as contemplated by law which would justify the

killing.

We find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts

you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Thus, the opinion may

vary when the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that we were

able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office.

Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@www.manilatimes.net