JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

DEFINITION AND BASIS

 Justifying circumstances – 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 criminal and
civil liability.
 No civil liability from justifying circumstances, except in par. 4 of Art. 11 where the
civil liability is borne if the person benefits from the act.
 The law (Art. 11) recognizes the non-existence of a crime when justifying circumstances
exist in the act.
THERE IS NO CRIME COMMITTED, THE ACT BEING JUSTIFIED
 Art. 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as justified. Such persons are not criminals, as
there is no crime committed.
BURDEN OF PROOF
 The circumstances mentioned in Art. 11 are matters of defense, thus it is the burden of
the accused to prove the justifying circumstances claimed by him to the court to avoid
incurring criminal liability.
SELF-DEFENSE
 Self-defense, must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person
invoking it.
 The burden of proof rests upon the accused. His duty is to establish self-defense by clear
and convincing evidence, otherwise conviction would follow from his admission that he
committed a crime.
 Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted
by the injured party may belie claim of self-defense.
 If the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman, then
his plea of self-defense is inconsistent.
 Physical fact may determine whether or not the accused acted in self-defense.
 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused
believed it was a real gun
 Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression; mere threatening attitude is not
unlawful aggression
o In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made
 When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression
  Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary
 An aggression that is expected is still real, provided it is imminent
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, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law.
 Right to life, right to property
REASON WHY PENAL LAW MAKES SELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL
 Finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel and save his person or rights
from impending danger or peril
 Lawful defense is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a person
unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, and therefore it is
inconceivable for the State to require that the innocent succumb to an unlawful
aggression without resistance.
 Lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social justice to repel the attack of an
aggression
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE
 Unlawful aggression
 Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE
 The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non.
o There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
committed an unlawful aggression against the person himself.
 Necessary that we are assaulted, attacked or threatened with an attack in an immediate
and imminent manner for the right of defense to exist.
 If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel.
AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL.
 Two kinds of aggression:
o Lawful
o Unlawful
 The fulfillment of duty or the exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner is
lawful aggression.
 Under Art. 249 of the New Civil Code, a person may use force or violence to protect his
property
 In US v Merced, the paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self-defense
if he killed the offended husband who was assaulting him
  A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
 When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists
 If it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take a more
advantageous position to insure the success of the attack already begun by him, the
unlawful aggression is considered continuing.
 The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression
MEANING OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
 Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent
kind.
 There must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to inflict
real injury.
o In the case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.
 There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either
actual or imminent
 When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right, there is no unlawful
aggression.
 The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the
accused.
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE
 Actual – that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence.
 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.
PERIL TO ONE’S LIMB
 When a person is attacked, he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm.
 The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his body, in which
case there is danger to his life.
 The peril to one’s limb may be actual or only imminent.
 Peril’s to one’s limb includes peril to the safety of one’s person from physical injuries
(e.g. an attack with fist blows)
THERE MUST BE ACTUAL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF WEAPON
 The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or
with actual use of weapon
 Insulting words addressed to the accused without physical assault could not constitute
unlawful aggression
 A light push on the head with the hand, push or shove does not constitute unlawful
aggression.
  A slap on the face is unlawful aggression because it is regarded as placing in real danger
a person’s dignity, rights and safety (People v. Sabio)
 Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.
 “Foot-kick greeting” is not unlawful aggression (People v. Sabio)
A STRONG RETALIATION FOR AN INJURY OR THREAT MAY AMOUNT TO AN
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
 When a person who was insulted, slightly injured or threatened, made a strong
retaliation by attacking the one who gave the insult, caused the slight injury or made the
threat, the former became the offender, and the insult, injury or threat should be
considered a provocation mitigating his liability.
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.
 When a person had inflicted slight physical injuries on another without intention to inflict
other injuries, and the latter attacked the former, the one making the attack was an
unlawful aggressor. The attack made was a retaliation.
THE ATTACK MADE BY THE DECEASED AND THE KILLING OF THE DECEASED
BY DEFENDANT SHOULD SUCCEED EACH OTHER WITHOUT APPRECIABLE
INTERVAL OF TIME
 In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of
the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or
at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time (US v.
Ferrer)
 When the killing of the deceased by the accused was after the attack made by the
deceased, the accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking
 Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the claim of self-defense.
NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AGREEMENT TO FIGHT
 No unlawful aggression in concerted fight.
 There is agreement to fight in this case.
 The challenge to a fight must be accepted.
 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.
 Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful.
 One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense
 The rule now is “stand ground when in the right”
o Where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him
to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon
(US v. Domen)
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS
 Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to chastity
 Defense of property
 Defense of home
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL
IT
 Presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual
o A threat to inflict real injury places us in imminent danger
o An actual physical assault places us in actual danger
 There be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense
 There be a necessity of the means used
THE NECESSITY TO TAKE A COURSE OF ACTION AND TO USE A MEANS OF
DEFENSE
 The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be wounded or killed, and
while the danger to his person or life subsists, he has a perfect and indisputable right to
repel such danger by wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable him completely
so that he may not continue the assault (US v. Molina)
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE NECESSITY DEPENDS UPON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
 Necessity of the course of action taken
 Place and occasion of the assault considered
 The darkness of the night and the surprise which characterize the assault considered
NO NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN
 Based on the necessity on the part of the person attacked to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression, and when the danger or risk on his part has disappeared, his
stabbing the aggressor while defending himself should have stopped (People v.
Calavagan)
 When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after unlawful aggression has ceased to
exist, there is still self-defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the requisites
of self-defense were present
 The person defending is not expected to control his blow
o When the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one making a
defense to determine what course of action to take
 In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his
assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon
o Necessity of the means used.
  The means employed by the person making a defense must be rationally
necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression
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 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
 The reasonableness of the means employed will depend upon:
o The nature and quality of the weapons
 The use of a knife or dagger, when attacked with a club, must be deemed
reasonable if it cannot be shown that the person assaulted (1) had other
available means, or (2) if there was other means he could choose
 To use a firearm against a dagger or a knife, in the regular order of things,
does not imply any difference between such weapons
 When a person is attacked with fist blows, he must repel the same with his
fists
o Physical condition, character and size
 When the one defending himself was of middle age, and three or four men
bigger and stronger than he were striking him with fists, such person was
justified in using a knife
 The aggressor was a bully, a man larger and stronger, of known violent
character, with pervious criminal records for assault.
 The character of the aggressor is emphasized
o Other circumstances considered
 In view of the imminence of danger, a shotgun is a reasonable means to
prevent an aggression with a bolo
 Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be
liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens
 The peace officer, in the performance of his duty, represents the law which he must
uphold. While the law on self-defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an
aggression, the duty of a peace officer requires him to overcome his opponent.
FIRST TWO REQUISITES COMMON TO THREE KINDS OF LEGITIMATE
DEFENSE
 Self-defense
 Defense of a relative
 Defense of a stranger
THIRD REQUISITE OF SELF-DEFENSE
  Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
 The one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust
conduct or by inciting or provoking the assailant.
 The third requisite of self-defense is present:
o When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending
himself
o When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient
o When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person
defending himself
o When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was
not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENSE
 Sec. 26 of RA 9262
 A battered woman has been defined as 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."
o Common personality traits include low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the
home, the family and the female sex role, emotional dependence upon the
dominant male, tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer’s actions, and
false hopes that the relationship will improve
 Characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence”
o Tension-building phase
 Minor battering occurs
 The woman tries to pacify the batterer by showing “placatory” and passive
behavior
 The woman becomes emotionally unavailable
o Acute battering incident
 Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes death
 Only the batterer may put an end to the violence
 The woman has a sense of detachment from the attack and terrible pain
 Incidents are often very savage and out of control, such that innocent
bystanders of intervenors are likely to get hurt
o Tranquil, loving, nonviolent phase
 The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner
 The battered woman convinces herself that the battering will never happen
again; that her partner will change for the better
 The illusion of absolute interdependency is well-entrenched in a battered woman’s
psyche
o In this phase, she and her batterer are emotionally dependent on each other
 Effect of Battery on the Woman
 o Lenore Walker explains that the cyclical nature of the violence inflicted upon the
battered woman immobilizes her “ability to act decisively in her own interests,
making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of escape”
o The abuse often escalates at the point of separation and battered women are in
greater danger of dying then
 However, flight after the commission of the crime is highly evidentiary of guilt, and
incompatible with self-defense
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEEFNDED
 Spouse
 Ascendants
 Descendants
 Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees
o Relatives by affinity, because of marriage are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-
law, and brother or sister-in-law
o Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity
 Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
o Consanguinity refers to blood relatives
 Basis of justification
o Humanitarian sentiment as well as impulse of blood which impels men to rush to
the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood
 Requisites of defense of relatives
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
o In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a
defense had no part therein
 Although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do
not reach the defender who took no part therein, because the latter was
prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a
relative
MUST LAWFUL AGGRESSION EXIST AS A MATTER OF FACT?
 It can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense (“Good
faith”)
 Gauge of reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel aggression
DEFENSE OF STRANGER
 Unlawful aggression
 Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
 The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive
  Who are deemed strangers?
o Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in par. 2
of Art. 11
AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
 The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor
 When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury
 The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by
the actor
 There is civil liability under par. 4 of Art. 11
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
 The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office
 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
 Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but shooting a thief who
refused to be arrested is not justified
 Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is different from self-defense
(distinguished from self-defense and from consequence of felonious act)
LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
 Art. 429 of the Civil Code – 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” under Art. 429, Civil Code, applied in Criminal Law
 The actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a
real dispossession
OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
 Requisites
o That an order has been issued by a superior
o That such order must be for some lawful purpose
o 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 order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it 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