crim midterms

Art 11 Justifying circumstances.

Par. 1 (self-defense)
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
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.

 Penal laws makes self-defense lawful because it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent
aggression upon its citizens

 Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite.

Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it
can- not consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.

 Article 249 of the new Civil Code provides that "(t)he 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."
 Thus, under the new Civil Code a person may use force or violence to protect his property; and if in protecting his
property such person uses force to prevent its being taken by another, the owner of the property is not an unlawful
aggressor, because he is merely exercising a right.

 Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke self- defense if he killed the offended husband who was
assaulting him.
that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to defend his
honor and rights by punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and (the paramour), he would have
exercised a lawful right and such acts would have fallen within the sanction of Article 423 (now Art. 247) of the Penal Code

Peril to one's life.

1. Actual — that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence.
2. 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.

 The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.
Thus, insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter how objectionable they may have been, without physical assault,
could not constitute unlawful aggression. A light push on the head with the hand does not constitute unlawful aggression.
But a slap on the face is an unlawful aggression

 Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient.

Even a mere push or shove not followed by other acts placing in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not
unlawful aggression. Foot-kick greeting" is not unlawful aggression.

 A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an unlawful aggression.

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 only as 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. In
self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.

 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.

 The unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by the accused.
 A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
 Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie
claim of self- defense.
 Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the claim of self-defense.
It is hard to believe that the deceased, an old man of 55 years sick with ulcer, would still press his attack and continue hacking
the accused after having been seriously injured and had lost his right hand.
The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with the plea of
self-defense.
 The fact that the accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with
the plea of self-defense.
When the accused surrendered to the policemen, he declined to give any statement, which is the natural course of things he
would have done if he had acted merely to defend himself.
 Physical fact may determine whether or not the accused acted in self-defense.
 When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists.
unless the aggressor is retreating is to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack
 No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight.
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."
So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat, The reason for the rule is that if
one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor.
 How to determine the unlawful aggressor.
The circumstance that it was the accused, not the deceased, who had a greater motive for committing the crime on the ground
that the deceased had already sufficiently punished the accused on account of his misbehavior and because he was publicly
humiliated, having gotten the worst of the fight between the two inside the theater, leads the court to the conclusion that the
claim of self-defense is really untenable.

Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights.

requires also the first and second requisites, namely,
(1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
1. Attempt to rape a woman — defense of right to chastity. Placing of hand by a man on the woman's upper thigh is
unlawful aggression.
2. Defense of property.
3. Defense of home.
 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused believed it was a real gun.
The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
 Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not unlawful aggression,
because it is required that the act be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an
injury.
Examples of threats to inflict real injury:
1. When one aims a revolver at another with the intention of shooting him.
2. The act of a person in retreating two steps and placing his hand in his pocket with a motion indicating his purpose to
commit an assault with a weapon.
3. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as if to make an attack.

 When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression.

 Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.

Second Requisite of Defense of Person or Right:

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
 The necessity to take a course of action and to use a means of defense.
a. Place and occasion of the assault considered.
b. The darkness of the night and the surprise which characterized the assault considered.
 The reasonableness of the necessity depends upon the circumstances.

No necessity of the course of action taken.

 When aggressor is disarmed.
 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.

 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.
 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.

the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury

As was already mentioned, the reasonableness of the means employed will depend upon
1. The nature and quality of the weapons:
This ruling is subject to the limitations (1) there was no other available means; or (2) if there was other means, the one
making a defense could not coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the aggression.
2. Physical condition, character and size.
3. Other circumstances considered. In view of the imminence of the danger, a shotgun is a reasonable means to prevent an
aggression with a bolo
 First two requisites common to three kinds of legitimate defense.
The first two requisites thus far explained are common to self- defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. These
three kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the third requisite.

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

 Reason for the third requisite of self-defense
When the person defending himself from the attack by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to
be blamed for having given cause for the aggression.
 Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered present.
The third requisite of self-defense is present —
1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or
4. When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of March 5, 1902 and of April 20, 1906)

 How to determine the sufficiency of provocation.

1. When one challenges the deceased to come out of the house and engage in a fist-fight with him
2. When one hurls insults or imputes to another the utterance of vulgar language
3. When the accused tried to forcibly kiss the sister of the deceased.
 Thus, to engage in a verbal argument cannot be considered sufficient provocation.
 Sufficient provocation not given by the person defending himself.
 Requisite of "lack of sufficient provocation" refers exclusively to "the person defending himself."

 Provocation by the person defending himself not proximate and immediate to the aggression.
the kissing of the girl took place on December 26 and the aggression was made on December 28, the provocation was
disregarded by the Supreme Court.

 Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.

 Flight, incompatible with self-defense.
The appellant went into hiding after the hacking incident. Suffice it to state that flight after the commission of the crime is
highly evidentiary of guilt, and incompatible with self-defense

Par. 2 (defense of relatives)

Relatives that can be defended.
1. Spouse.
2 Ascendants.
3 Descendants.
4 Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees.
5 Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.

 if A acted in defense of the husband of A's sister-in-law, there is no defense of relative, because the relation between A
and the husband of A's sister-in-law is not one of those mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 11.
Requisites of defense of relatives:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein.

- Of the three (3) requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non
- a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se
- When two persons are getting ready to strike each other, there can be no unlawful aggression, and hence, a relative of
either who butts in and administers a deadly blow on the other to prevent him from doing harm is not acting in defense of a
relative, but is guilty of homicide.

 Mistake of fact acted in good faith is justifiable

 There is still a legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided
that the one defend- ing such relative has no part in the provocation.
Reason for the rule: That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender
who took no part therein, be- cause the latter was prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a
relative.

 The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

except if the father induced his son to injure another, taking part in the provocation of the son.

 Suppose, the person defending his relative was also induced by revenge or hatred, would there be a legitimate defense of
relative? As long as the three requisites of defense of relatives are present, it will still be a legitimate defense.
 Domingo Rivera challenged the deceased to prove who of them was the better man. Antonio Rivera, father of Domingo,
rushed to his son's assistance. Domingo Rivera inflicted fatal wounds upon the deceased. the father was justified But
Domingo Rivera was declared guilty of the crime of homicide.

Par. 3 (defense of strangers)

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. (See People vs. Moral, No. L-31139,
Oct. 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 474, 485)

Note that the first two requisites are the same as those of self- defense and defense of relatives.

 This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or generous motive,
 Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is considered stranger
for the purpose of paragraph 3. Hence, even a close friend or a distant relative is a stranger within the meaning of
paragraph 3.
 The third requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the
alleged defense of the stranger would be only a pretext
 Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled is defense of stranger.
Par. 4 (avoidance of greater evil or injury)
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

 He was forced to choose between losing his life in the precipice or sacrificing the life of the innocent bystander. He
chose the latter, swerved his car to the right, ran over and killed the passer-by. excused.
 Does the foregoing example violate the second condition required by the Code, that is, that the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it? the instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater
importance than that of another.
 The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who were
the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants. Juan Padernal
was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.

 There is civil liability under this paragraph

In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received. (Art. 101)

Par. 5 (Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office)

Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Requisites
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. That 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
 Legitimate performance of duty.
 Illegal performance of duty.

Par. 6 (Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.)

Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

 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.