JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1 Self defense
2 Defense of relatives
3 Defense of strangers
4 Avoidance of greater evil
5 Fulfillment of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
6 Obedience to order of a superior for some lawful purpose.
* Battered Woman Syndrome
SELF DEFENSE
RATIONALE:
A. STAND YOUR GROUND WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT.
B. MAN HAS NATURAL INSTINCT TO PRESERVE HIMSELF AND
SAVE HIS PERSON FROM IMPENDING DANGER OR PERIL.
C. IT IS INCONCEIVABLE FOR THE STATE TO JUST EXPECT THE
INNOCENT TO SUCCUMB TO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WITHOUT
RESISTANCE.

RETREAT TO THE WALL vS. STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT

RETREAT TO THE WALL
An ancient common law rule in homicide which made it the duty
of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he is
justified in meeting force with force. Not followed in the
Philippines
STAND GROUND WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT
A rule which states that where the accused is where he has the
right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his
assailant is advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. Followed
in the Philippines.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES,
Article 11
Effect when the offender invokes any of the justifying circumstance
and the Court appreciates it?
A. IT'S AS IF THERE IS NO CRIME.
B. NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY, NO CIVIL LIABILITY

The accused is said to have acted within the bounds of the law. The
offender is said to not have transgressed the law. Therefore, there is
no crime committed.
However, it is not absolute rule. There can be civil liability as regards
Paragraph 4 when it comes to avoidance of greater evil or injury.

WHAT WOULD JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IMPLY AS

CONSEQUENCE
Note:
1 There is ADMISSION that he committed the acts or omissions
alleged in the information but avoids criminal responsibility by
saying that his act is justified.
2 Inverted trial
3 As a rule, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of
the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits the
commission of the crime and invokes self-defense.
4 Prove elements of self-defense by CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE

Effect if he fails to prove self-defense?

The accused is said to be criminally liable for admission has been
done but failed to prove that it justified.

THREE REOUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE

1. Unlawful aggression.
*If there is none, then one cannot invoke self-defense and the
rest of the requisites will not be appreciated. There is no self-
defense.
*Must originate from the victim or the aggressor.
3 Elements of Unlawful Aggression
Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three
elements of unlawful aggression, namely:
1 there must be a physical or material attack or assault;
2 the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
3 the attack or assault must be unlawful.

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.

TYPES OF AGGRESSION
As per People of the Philippines vs. Melanio Nugas
 1. Physical/Material unlawful aggression - an attack with physical
force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively
determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
*That the aggressor is actually injuring the accused.
2. Imminent unlawful aggression - attack that is impending or at the
point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive
and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with
intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to
attack)
*Injury is not actual.

When the accused inflicts an injury to the aggressor to protect

himself, there must be unlawful aggression that is existing at the
time. But when the aggressor is disarmed unlawful aggression
has ceased, and when injury is inflicted upon him, then no self-
defense.

Unlawful aggression must be continuing.

SELF-DEFENSE VS. RETALIATION

In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party
already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense
the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the
accused.

When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the

one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even wound the
former aggressor. To be sure, when the present victim no longer
persisted in his purpose or action to the extent that the object of his
attack was no longer in peril, there was no more unlawful aggression
that would warrant legal self-defense on the part of the offender.
LOOK AT THE INTERVAL!

BASED ON JURISPRUDENCE. THE FF. ARE FORMS OF UNLAWFUL

AGGRESSION:
1. Slapping of one's face
2. The act of a person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another
constitutes unlawful aggression because it signifies the pursuer's
intent to commit an assault with this weapon.
How about mere drawing of the bolo/bladed weapon? Not yet
aggression. The moment one points the gun and utters something,
then it becomes unlawful aggression

3. Forcibly entering one's house and brandishing one's gun and using a
bolo to attack the person

Francis, a high school classmate of Renato, approached and said to

the latter after their English class, "You go home get your firearm, if
you won't go home and get a gun, I will go to your place and kill you
including your parents, brothers and sisters." Francis, while uttering
these words, was unarmed. Is this unlawful aggression?

When initial aggressor loses his deadly weapon, or when it is wrestled

away from him or when aggressor flees, what happens?

Absence of physical injuries on accused when subjected to physical

examination

unlawful aggression "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or

imminent danger - not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is
present 'only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat
to one's life.'" The unlawful aggression may constitute an actual
physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury
upon the accused. In case of a "threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the x × × intent to cause injury.

The test for the presence of unlawful aggression is whether the

aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety
of the person defending himself, the peril must not be an imagined or
imaginary threat.

The victim who had shown signs of mental illness threatened his
immediate relatives. The family of the victim asked the authorities to
assist them in apprehending the victim. One of the patrolmen, who
was the childhood friend of the victim, entered the house upon the
invitation of the victim. The victim suddenly emerged from an adjacent
room rushed at the patrolman swinging the bolo. The patrolman drew
his pistol and fired three shots. The patrolman immediately ran out of
the house after firing the three shots. The victim died shortly. The
patrolmen were charged and convicted for homicide. Is there unlawful
aggression?

When there is no unlawful aggression

Victim is 80 years old and frail and the accused is 33 years old
Victim sustained 30 stab wounds and accused had bruises only
Victim sustained wounds in the back
Victim's gun was still tucked in his waist
Accused was unharmed and had no injuries
Accused and victim agreed to duel
Victim uttering mere threatening words
Accused's refusal to give statement to the police
Accused's flight from the scene of the crime

RULES TO REMEMBER
WHEN VICTIM (INITIAL AGGRESSOR) ALREADY FELL TO THE GROUND
OR ALREADY DISARMED, AND THE ACCUSED CONTINUES TO INFLICT
BLOWS OR HACK, NO MORE SELF DEFENSE. THERE IS NO UNLAWULE
AGGRESSION
EXCEPT: WHEN AGGRESSOR still posed threat to the life of the
accused.

AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL.

IF POLICE OFFICER USES FORCE TO SUBDUE CRIMINAL/SUSPECT THE
LATTER CANNOT INVOKE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION.

Husband surprised wife and paramour (kabet) in the act of sexual

coitus. Husband started hacking them with a bolo. Wife was wounded.
Paramour wrestled the bolo away from Husband and hacked the
husband several times.
Can kabet invoke self-defense? No, since the aggression of the
husband is lawful. He is defending himself from the criminal act
committed by the wife and paramour.
SC: Even if the deceased had killed his wife and her codefendant, he
would but have exercised a lawful right, for the defendant Merced well
knew that by maintaining illicit relations with a married woman he was
committing an unlawful act of a criminal nature and was exposing
himself to the vengeance of the offended husband, and when the two
defendants met in a dwelling room of a house near that in which the
offended husband lived, they well knew that they were running the
danger of sometime being surprised as it so occurred.

Nacnac Case:

*The following circumstances negate a conviction for the killing of the

victim:
1. The drunken state of the victim;
2. The victim was also a police officer who was professionally
trained at shooting.
3. The warning shot fired by petitioner was ignored by the victim;
4. A lawful order by petitioner was ignored by the victim; and
5. The victim was known for his combative and drunken
behavior.
.

There were cases where mere drawing of a gun did not constitute as
unlawfull aggression. But why was this case different? This was a
trained police officer, he was given warning, he ignored the warning.
Reasonable necessity: LONE GUN SHOT WOUND

Lack of sufficient provocation: As gleaned from the findings of the trial

court, petitioner gave the victim a lawful order and fired a warning
shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. Absent from the
shooting incident was any evidence on petitioner sufficiently
provoking the victim prior to the shooting.

TOLEDO vs PEOPLE

The accused cannot raise both accident and self-defense at the same
time. They are inconsistent with each other. When you say accident, it
means it happened outside of the sway of things. There was no
deliberate intent on the part of the accused. In case of self-defense,
the accused deliberately or intentionally wounded or killed the victim
based on the impulse of self-preservation. Self-defense is a positive
and overt act done by the accused based on the impulse of self-
preservation. Hence, the two are inconsistent with each other and
cannot be raised at the same time.

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a 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.

Why so?
Battered Wife- a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful
physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to do something
he wants her to do without concern for her rights. It includes wives or
woman in any form of intimate relationship with a man. The couple
must go through the battering cycle at least twice.

Mind is affected, and so the woman believes even if husband is doing

nothing, continuous to be a threat to her life.

Requirement
CUMULATIVE ABUSE - NOT SINGLE ACT OF ABUSE AT LEAST TWO
CYCLES OF BATTERY
PHYSICAL HARM -INFLICTION OF PHYSICAL HARM and RESULTANT
PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TO DEFEND HERSELF - BECAUSE

OF PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS,

The "Battered Woman Syndrome" to be invoked must have a cycle of

violence, to wit:
(1)the tension-building phase, where minor batterings in the form of
verbal or slight physical abuse occurs. Here, the woman tries to
pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing behavior; or
by simply staying out of his way,
(2)the acute battering incident phase which is characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, death. The battered
 woman usually realizes that she cannot reason with him and that
resistance would only exacerbate her condition; and
(3)the tranquil period, where the couple experience a compound
relief and the batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner.

Who are your relatives?

1 Spouse
2 Ascendants- REIATIVES BY BLOOD IN THE DIRECT
3 ASCENDING LINE (PARENTS)
4 Descendants - RELATIVES BY BLOOD IN THE DIRECT
5 DESCENDING LINE (CHILD)
6 SIBLINGS -- legitimate, natural (ILLEGITIMATE) or adopted
brothers or sisters
7 RELATIVES by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
(AUNT AND UNCLES AND FIRST COUSINS)
• RELATIVES by affinity: parents in-law, son or daughter in law,brother-
in-law or sister-in-law

Requirements of defense of a 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, that
the one making the defense has no part therein.
-one who induces the relative to commit the provocation will be
considered to have taken part in the provocation.

Requirements of defense of a stranger

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.
Noble intent is the reason to help

What you can do for yourself, you can do for others

Common Law spouse – defense of a stranger is to be appreciated.

REQUISITES OF AVOIDANCE OF
GREATER EVIL
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
NOT MERELY IMAGINARY
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
THE GREATER EVIL WAS NOT CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE
OR IMPRUDENCE
4. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.

He can invoke to suffer a lesser evil.

REQUISITES OF FULFILMENT OF DUTY

The accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office.
The injury caused is the consequence of the due performance of duty
or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

Usually invoked by police officers. A police officer in making an arrest

is justified in using force that is reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape and
recapture him if he escapes. THEY CAN FIRE UPON THE ACCUSED
ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
People v. De Lima, the convict tried stabbing the police officer. The
police officer fired at him and missed. Then the convict attempted to
flee.
The police officer fired at him and eventually the convict died. What
defense can the police officer invoke?
AGGRESSION is not unlawful because he is in the performance of his
duty

LAWFUL EXERCISE OF DUTY

Implementing the execution of death penalty
Doctor who amputates a patient's leg to save the person from further
harm

OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER OF

A SUPERIOR
[Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
OBEDIENCE TO A
LAWFUL ORDER OF A
SUPERIOR

REQUISITES OF OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER OF SUPERIOR

1. An order has been issued by a superior;
2. The order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. The means used by the accused subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful

Accused must be in belief that the order is lawful.

Justifying circumstances

As to the act – the act is lawful

As to the accused – there is admission of the crime, but justifies the
commission of such
As to the effect – No criminal liability and civil liability (except for par
4)

No crime, no criminal. The word should be absolved

Exempting Circumstances
There is no crime, but there is a criminal.

As to liability, no criminal liability but there is civil liability

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those circumstances, which if present or attendant in the commission
of a felony, would serve to exempt the offender from criminal liability
because the offender acted without voluntariness. There is no freedom
of action, or no intelligence on the part of the offender
• THERE IS A CRIME but the actor is exempted/ does not incur criminal
liability because of lack of voluntariness or intelligence.

Imbecile – completely lacking of mental capacities.

Sanity is presumed, hence burden of proof is on the defense.