PART 1

I. Revised Penal Code - Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

Circumstances affecting criminal liability:

1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

2. Exempting Circumstances (Art.12)

3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art.13)

4. Aggravating Circumstances (Art. 14)

5. Alternative Circumstances (Art. 15)

Justifying Circumstance (Art. 11)

- Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law

- The person is deemed not to have transgressed the law

- There is no criminal and civil liability except in paragraph 4

Article 11. Justifying circumstances.

The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Self-defense

2. Defense of Relatives

3. Defense of a Stranger

4. State of Necessity

5. Fulfillment of Duty

6. Obedience of an Order
Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that 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.

A. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

Two kinds of Aggression:

1. Lawful Aggression – Ex. "The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude
any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as
may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property." (Doctrine of Self-help, Art. 429, Civil Code)

Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and defense of property can
only be invoked when it is coupled with some form of attack on the person of one entrusted with
said property. The defense of property, whether complete or incomplete, to be available in
prosecutions for murder or homicide must be coupled with an attack by the one getting the
property on the person defending it. (Justice Gutierrez)

The deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage to appellant’s house, nor to close his
accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and talk things over with
him. The assault on appellant’s property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as
contemplated by law. (People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983)

2. Unlawful Aggression

- An assault or at least a threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

- An actual physical assault upon a person or at least a threat to inflict real injury.

A.) Actual – The danger is present, that is, it is actually in existence

Example:

While Xyrene and Jam were cutting trees, they had a heated argument. Xyrene suddenly slashed
Jam with a bolo thereby wounding Jam’s right shoulder. Xyrene was about to deliver another
blow but Jam was able to retrieve his bolo and hacked Xyrene’s stomach. Xyrene fell down and
died a few moments later due to blood loss.

B.) Imminent – The danger is on point of happening.

Example:

A and B were enemies and in numerous occasions, B threatened A that he will kill him when
their paths will cross. One night, while A was coming back home, he saw B heading towards
him. B had a gun and he pointed the gun at him. A, who was also armed with gun, swiftly drew
out his pistol and shot B.

A. Unlawful Aggression

1. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon

2. Insulting words, no matter how objectionable, without physical force, does not constitute
unlawful aggression

3. A slap in the face constitutes unlawful aggression

4. Retaliation is NOT self-defense

Example:

While A was walking along the street one night, B approached him from behind and punched the
back of his head. B kicked him continuously until A fell down. B took A’s cellphone and wallet
and ran away. On his way home, A saw B eating balot outside a store. A picked up a large stone
and bashed it against B’s head. B was hospitalized for 3 months.

5. The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.

6. No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight.

7. Mere threatening is not unlawful aggression

Art. 285. Other light threats. – The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) shall be impose upon:

1. Any person who without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall
threaten another with a weapon, or draw such weapon in quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense.

Example:

A saw his mortal enemy B who was buying bread in the bakeshop. A pulled out his knife and
charged towards the direction of B. B saw A so B drew his gun. When A saw the gun, he stopped
and ran away. A filed a criminal case against B for Light Threat under Art. 285.

8. The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression

Example:

A, an army veteran, was using public toilet to urinate. B, a stranger, approached from behind,
pointed a TOY gun at A’s head, and shouted “Papatayin kita! In just two skillful moves, A
successfully disarmed B and karate chopped his neck. B fell down and died. Unknown to A,
there was a hidden camera as it was just a prank.

Can A invoke self-defense? Yes.

Mistake of Fact

“Ignorantia Facti Excusat” – ignorance of a fact is an excuse

-an honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act. (People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257)

-THE ACT DONE WOULD HAVE BEEN LAWFUL, HAD THE FACTS BEEN AS THE
ACUSSED BELIEVED THEM TO BE.

B. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS TO PREVENT OR REPEAL IT.

1. Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION

Example:

a. Someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm and you shot him.

Was there necessary to act? Yes

b. Someone attacked you with a knife but you blocked it, and the assailant ran away. You chased
him and killed him.

Was there necessity to act? No.

2. Necessity of the MEANS EMPLOYED

Example:

a. Someone attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a firearm and you shot him.

Was there necessity to act? Yes

b. Someone shouted at you and slapped you in the face. Feeling angry, you shot him in the head.

Was there necessity to act? No

- Perfect equality between the weapons used is NOT required

-Not “material commensurability” but only “rational equivalence”

The reasonableness of the means employed will depend on:

1. The nature and quality of weapons

2. Physical condition, character and size

Self-Defense Defense of Relatives Defense of Strangers

1.) Unlawful Agression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
1.) Unlawful Aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) In case the provocation
was given by the person
attacked, the one making the
defense had no part therein.
1.) Unlawful Aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) The person defending be
not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil
motive.

C, LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON

DEFENDING HIMSELF
Provocation

- Action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical retaliation (lexi.com)

Sufficient Provocation

-Provocation must be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to
its commission

The 3rd element is present:

1. When no provocation at all was given by the person defending

2. Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient

3. Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself

4. The provocation was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression (For example, si A
sinampal niya si B noong morning. And pagkahapon, nakita ni B si A. Dahil sa sinampal siya
nung morning, si B kumuha siya ng panaksak at sasaksakin niya sana si A. Pero si A, mabilis
siya nakabunot ng baril and binaril niya si B. Ang question is: Meron bang sufficient
provocation sa part niya? Although sinampal niya and that is considered provocation pero yung
provocation namang yun hindi siya proximate and immediate sa act of aggression. Kase
morning siya sinampal. Kailangang morning din yung act of aggression. Kapag meron nang
lapse of time hindi na proximate and immediate to the act of aggression yung provocation kaya
present pa rin and third requirement. And he can validly invoke self-defense.)

What will happen if ONE or SOME of the REQUISITES of Self-defense are not present?

X Unlawful aggression

 Reasonable necessity

 Lack of sufficient provocation

There is no valid self defense to speak of. Unlawful aggression is the most important element of
self-defense. No self-defense, accused is criminally liable.

 Unlawful aggression

X Reasonable necessity

X Lack of sufficient provocation

 It is only Ordinary mitigating circumstance under Article 13. This means that in case of
mitigating circumstances, the penalty can be lower, in some instance, the penalty is reclusion
perpetua to death, there is an ordinary mitigating circumstance which is the Reclusion perpetua
wherein mas lower yung penalty kesa sa Reclusion perpetua to death. It depends on the
indivisibility of the penalty.

2 Conditions are present

 or meron Unlawful Aggression

 or X Reasonable necessity

X or meron Lack of sufficient provocation

There is a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article 69. If majority of the elements
are present, a penalty can be lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law. Cannot be
considered as wholly excusable because of the absence of some of the requisites to justify the
action. It depends upon the discretion of the judge if the penalty can be lowered to one or two
degrees.

In what case is the accused NOT criminally liable of the any of the conditions fro self-
defense?

It was mentioned in the two examples that without the completion of the three elements, there is
no self-defense or there is incomplete self-defense and can still be held liable. The penalties can
be lowered by the acquisition of Article 13 however, still considered liable to the crime.

Under the Anti-Violence against women and their children.

Section 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as Defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists.
CYCLE OF VIOLENCE (Three Phases)

First Phase. Tension-Building Phase

- minor battering occurs, it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile
behavior

Second Phase. Acute Battering Incident

- is said to be characterized brutally, destructiveness and sometimes, death.

Third Phase. Tranquil, Loving Phase

- a period wherein the couple experience profound relief. (After the husband realized what he
had done, he will apologized, asking for forgiveness and promising on not doing the act again.
And will repeat the cycle again.)

PART 2

Self-Defense Defense of Relatives Defense of Strangers

1.) Unlawful Aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
1.) Unlawful Aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) In case the provocation
was given by the person
attacked, the one making the
defense had no part therein.
1.) Unlawful Aggression
2.) Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
3.) The person defending be
not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil
motive.

Defense of Relative

1. Spouse - Asawa

2. Ascendants - Grandparents and parents

3. Descendants - Children and Grandchildren

4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relative by affinity in the same
degrees - 2nd degree, sisters and brothers by blood or adopted, Uncle 3rd degree and cousin as 4th
degree.

5. Relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree - Parents-in-law, Sisters/Brothers-in-

law and Son/daughter-in-law.

Common-law spouse (Live-in partner), when defended by a common law wife, it is not
considered as defense of relative but a defense of a stranger because there is no benefit of
marriage.

Requisites of Defense of Relative

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein (Dapat yung relative na nagdedefend ay hindi sumali or did not take part sa
provocation, but it is accepted if ang gumawa ng provocation ay galing sa relative being
defended)

EXAMPLE OF EMELENT NUMBER 3 OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

Leng was with her brother Cardo when she saw her Ivana selling bbq. Leng approached Ivana
and hurdled invectives at her, calling her “Igat ka…malandi…pokpok..maduming babae..inagaw
mo boyfriend ko na si Zaito”

Infuriated, Ivana grabbed the knife she was using and tried to stab Leng but missed. Ivana tried
to stab Leng again but Cardo pulled out his gun and shot Ivana to death.

There is justifying circumstances dahil hindi sumali or did not took part si Cardo sa
pagprovoke kay Ivana.

If there is a provocation from Cardo, he will be held liable and the defense of relative is
incomplete with the absence of third element.

EXAMPLE OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

A saw B walking with his brother C. A pulled out his knife and tried to stab B but B stepped
back. A was about to stab B again but C, who was then armed, pulled out his gun and shot A
who died as a consequence.
Unlawful aggression may depend upon the honest belief of the one making the defense.

EXAMPLE:

FACT

Unlawful aggressor - Juan

Defense - Pedro

BRUNO’S HONEST BELIEF

Unlawful aggressor - Pedro (because he was about to attack Juan)

Defense - Juan

Juan saw his enemy Pedro. Juan rushed towards Pedro and tried to hack him with a bolo but
missed. When Juan tried to hack Pedro again, Juan lost balance and fell. Pedro pulled out his
own bolo and raised it as Juan was trying to get up to attack Pedro once more.l Bruno, Juan’s
brother arrived and saw Pedro who was about to hack Juan. Bruno shot Pedro who did not know
that Juan was the one who attacked first.

He can invoke the justifying circumstances of Defense of Relative because of his honest
belief na si Pedro ang unlawful aggressor sa nangyare.

DEFENSE OF STRANGER

1. Unlawful aggression

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

3. The person defending be not included by revenge, resentment or other evil motive (the
person defending must not motivated by revenge or resentment towards the aggressor in
the performance of the defense)

STRANGERS - any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in

paragraph 2 of Art. 11. (Includes common law spouse or live-in partner)

EXAMPLE OF THIRD ELEMENT DEFENSE OF STRANGER

While A was walking, he heard screams and ran towards the sound. A saw K trying to stab X. A
resented K because they exchange first blows a month ago. A pulled out his knife and stabs K to
prevent him from stabbing X.

Because of the absence of third element, A cannot constitute defense of stranger because he
was motivated by resentment dahil sa nangyari sakanila ni K a month ago. The person
making the defense was induced by resentment. The person making the defense is
considered criminally liable. Pero there is a benefit from the incomplete defense of
stranger.

STATE OF NECESSITY ELEMENTS –(Eto lang may civil liability)

- any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present;

Damage means INJURY to a person or DAMAGE to property

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to be avoid it;

3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

EXAMPLE OF THIRD ELEMENT

The truck carrying a gasoline was parked in the gasoline station. It caught fire and started to
burn. To prevent the station from being destroyed, they pushed the truck away and its
momentum made it crash against the house of X which also burned as a result.

Kapag wala nang ibang way para maiwasan yung pagkasunog ng bahay, it will fall under
the state of necessity at hindi magiging liable yung mga nanulak ng truck. Pero kung may
area naman kung saan pwede nilang itulak to cause less damage pero tinuloy padin nila sa
bahay ni X, then there is an absence of third element, therefore can be held laible.

Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases - the exemption from criminally liable
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Art 11 of this
code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the
following rules:

Second. In cases falling within the subdivision 4 of Article 11, the person for whose benefit the
harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received. (Civil liability does not necessarily mean that the person personally and directly
performed the act are not the only one can be held civilly liable but also the person benefited
from the harm prevented)

EXAMPLE:

A had a barn full of cows. The neighboring property owned by B was filled with crops and
vegetables. One day while X was walking, he saw the barn was burning. To save the cows, he
opened the doors of the barn and all cows went to the neighbor’s land and they destroyed the
crops and vegetables.
The one civilly liable is not X but A, because A benefited when X opened the door of hius
barn to save the cows from burning.

EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTED INJURY TO PERSONS

While a was driving carefully one night, an unlighted truck in the opposite direction swerved to
his lane and was heading towards him. In a split second decision, A turned violently to the right
where he ran over a bicycle rider who died.

EXAMPLE OF ACCEPTED DAMAGE TO PROPERTY

Five nipa huts owned by different people were built just one meter apart from each other. The
farthest nipa hut caught fire and in order to prevent the burning of the nipa huts, one of the
owners pulled down and destroyed the adjoining nipa hut.

Ang evil na iniiwasan mo ay dapat hindi nagmula sa kapabayaan mo o dahil sa felonious

act mo. If the evil you sought to avoid ay ikaw din ang may kagagawan, then there is an
incomplete state of necessity.

EXAMPLE:

A was driving beyond the speed limit one night because he was in hurry. Because of the speed, A
lost control and was headed directly towards a tree. To avoid the tree, he swerved to the left
where he hit a pedestrian who died on the spot.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

- Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

2 ELEMENTS

1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in lawful exercise of a right or
office;

2. That the injury caused or the offense committed by the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

EXAMPLE:

Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

Sec 2. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person
arrested shall not be subject to any greater restrain than is necessary for his detention.
(Dapat ay ang force ng isang tao sa pag aaresto ay reasonably necessary in order to arrest
the person)

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)

Under this paragraph (lawful exercise of a right), it is not necessary that there be unlawful
aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property.

If there is unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property,
then Par. 1 of Art. 11 applies. – Reyes

Example of an “exercise of right”:

1. A issued PDC’s in favor of JG Corp., a subdivision developer. JG Corp. failed to develop his
unit within the time limit so A gave a “stop payment” order to the bank. When the checks were
presented for payment, the PDCs bounced. JG Corp. filed a criminal case of BP blg. 22 against
A.

Is there any available defense for A?

Yes. Under PD No. 957, Sec. 23, “Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No installment payment made by
a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be
forfeited in favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or
developer, desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop
the subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the time
limit for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be reimbursed the total
amount paid including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests, with interest
thereon at the legal rate.”

2. Jejemon was sent to the emergency room. His right leg was amputated to prevent the disease
from spreading elsewhere. Upon regaining consciousness after the operation, the parents of
Jejemon filed a criminal case of mutilation against the surgeon.

Is the surgeon criminally liable of mutilation? No. He is merely exercising his office. Kailangan
niyang putilin yung leg in order to prevent the disease to spread elsewhere dahil baka yun pa
ang sanhi ng pagkamatay ni Jejemon.
(Obedience to a Lawful Order)

Par. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful
purpose.

Requisites:

A. That an order has been issued by a superior

B. That such order must be for some lawful purpose

C. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Example:

A was ordered by his police superior B to torture the arrested prisoner to elicit a confession and
to make him feel the pain he caused to the families of the victims.

Does it have a lawful purpose?

No. In fact, it is punish under R.A. 9745 otherwise known as “Anti-Torture Act of 2009”, Sec. 3
(a), "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is
intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person
information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or for
any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority. It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.

Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances.

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. (dito sinabi natin na
kailangang merong 1 out 3 requirements. Kapag present ang isang requirement meron lamang
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances.)
(At kapag present naman ang 2 out of 3 requirement merong Privilege Mitigating
Circumstances)

Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. - A
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is
not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same
or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided
that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period
which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption
present or lacking.

Self-Defense Defense of Relatives Defense of Strangers

1.) Unlawful Aggression 1.) Unlawful Aggression 1.) Unlawful Aggression

X 2.) Reasonable necessity of X 2.) Reasonable necessity of X 2.) Reasonable necessity of

the means employed to the means employed to the means employed to
prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it.

X 3.) Lack of sufficient X 3.) In case the provocation X 3.) The person defending be
provocation on the part of the was given by the person not induced by revenge,
person defending himself. attacked, the one making the resentment, or other evil
defense had no part therein. motive.

EFFECTS:

ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

Penalty provides 2 Indivisible Penalties:

Example: Reclusion Perpetua to Death Reclusion perpetua (read Art. 63)

Divisible Penalty having (3) periods:

Example: Reclusion Temporal Reclusion Temporal in its Minimum Period (read Art. 64,
Par.2 and Art. 76)
Paano kung present ang 2 out of 3 (1 and 2 or 1 and 3 requirements lang ang pasok)?

Self-Defense Defense of Relatives Defense of Strangers

1.) Unlawful Agression 1.) Unlawful Aggression 1.) Unlawful Aggression

2.) Reasonable necessity of 2.) Reasonable necessity of 2.) Reasonable necessity of

the means employed to the means employed to the means employed to
prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it.

X 3.) Lack of sufficient X 3.) In case the provocation X 3.) The person defending be
provocation on the part of the was given by the person not induced by revenge,
person defending himself. attacked, the one making the resentment, or other evil
defense had no part therein. motive.

Self-Defense Defense of Relatives Defense of Strangers

1.) Unlawful Agression 1.) Unlawful Aggression 1.) Unlawful Aggression

X 2.) Reasonable necessity of X 2.) Reasonable necessity of X 2.) Reasonable necessity of

the means employed to the means employed to the means employed to
prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it.

3.) Lack of sufficient 3.) In case the provocation 3.) The person defending be
provocation on the part of the was given by the person not induced by revenge,
person defending himself. attacked, the one making the resentment, or other evil
defense had no part therein. motive.

Example:

Homicide under Art. 249

Imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal

Prision Mayor (1 degree lower) or Prision Correccional (2 degress lower)

State of Necessity Fulfillment of Duty Obedience to a Lawful Order

1. The evil sought to be 1. That the accused acted in 1. That an order has been
avoided actually exists; the performance of a duty or issued by a superior
in the lawful exercise of a
right or office;

X 2. That the injury feared be 2. That the injury caused or X 2. That such order must be
greater than that done to avoid the offense committed by the for some lawful purpose
it; necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such
right or office;

X 3. That there be no other X 3. That the means used by

practical and less harmful the subordinate to carry out
means of preventing it. said order is lawful

(Pano natin malaman kung majority lang ang present?) This question is already answered by the
case of

People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943

“In this case, the Court considered the existence or presence of one of the two requisites as
constituting the majority.”

State of Necessity Fulfillment of Duty Obedience to a Lawful Order

1. The evil sought to be 1. That the accused acted in 1. That an order has been
avoided actually exists; the performance of a duty or issued by a superior
in the lawful exercise of a
right or office;

2. That the injury feared be X 2. That the injury caused or 2. That such order must be for
greater than that done to avoid the offense committed by the some lawful purpose
it; necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such
right or office;

X 3. That there be no other X 3. That the means used by

practical and less harmful the subordinate to carry out
means of preventing it. said order is lawful

According to Reyes:

There is NO ordinary mitigating circumstance under Article 13, Par. 1, when the justifying or
exempting circumstance has two requisites only.

(So the justifying or exempting circumstance kapag ang requisites ay dalawa lang walang
ordinary mitigating circumstance. Bakit? Kase kapag dalawa lang ang requisites, present ang 1
out of 2, mahuhulog na siya under Art. 69 at hindi na as an Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance)