Art.

11: Justifying Circumstances – those wherein the acts of the actor are in
accordance with law, hence, he is justified. There is no criminal and civil liability
because there is no crime.

A. Absolutory Causes- A circumstance that absolves the offender from

criminal liability (Same effect as exempting circumstance)

B. Instigation- luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no
intention to commit, in order to prosecute him.

 The law enforcers act as active co-principals

 Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused ( No criminal liablity)

Entrapment- employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture a

lawbreaker.

C. Unlawful Aggression- is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it

is either actual or imminent.

1. Actual/real aggression – Real aggression presupposes an act positively

strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not
merely threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack.
There must be real danger to life a personal safety.

2. Imminent unlawful aggression – it is an attack that is impending or on

the point of happening. It must not consist in a mere threatening
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary. The intimidating attitude
must be offensive and positively strong.

3. Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression.

Each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither
can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an
incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the
combatants. Exception: Where the attack is made in violation of the
conditions agreed upon, there may be unlawful aggression.

4. Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the

time the defense is made. It may no longer exist if the aggressor runs
away after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue
 fighting. If the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he
suffered the injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not
constitute self-defense, but revenge.

D. Battered Woman Syndrome- the set of symptoms, injuries, and signs of

mistreatment seen in a woman who has been repeatedly abused by a spouse,
partner, or relative.

In criminal and family law, the novel concept of Battered Woman Syndrome
(BWS) vis-à-vis self-defense has been a controversial topic. Republic Act No.
9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act (“VAWC”) puts into law this concept and states:

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.

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.

Hence, under Philippine laws, even if the elements of self-defense are not present,
a woman suffering from BWS shall not be criminally and civilly liable.

CASE # 1- Velasquez VS People ( Self-defense)

FACTS:

Jesus’ Version
On May 24, 2003 in the evening at Brgy. Palua, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, Jesus Del
Mundo, together with his wife Ana Del Mundo, saw Ampong and Nora having
intercourse in their property. Surprised, the two ran away and Jesus pursued them
to the house of Ampong’s aunt but did not see them there. On his way back home,
Jesus was attacked by Nicolas, Victor, Felix, Jojo, Sonny, and Ampong who were
armed with stones and wooden poles, inflicting upon him injuries in the vital parts
of his body. Maria Teresita, helping Ana search for Jesus, witnessed the assault
happen.
Petitioners Version
Nicolas made his way to Victor's place, where he saw Jesus hacking Victor's door.
Several neighbors - the other accused - allegedly tried to pacify Jesus. Jesus, who
was supposedly inebriated, vented his ire upon Nicolas and the other accused, as
well as on Mercedes. The accused thus responded and countered Jesus' attacks,
leading to his injuries. RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime Attempted Murder, Sonny was charged with Less Serious Physical
Injuries and Jojo was acquitted. Petitioners filed for Motion for Reconsideration
which the RTC denied. They then appealed to the CA. CA modified the decision to
Serious Physical Injuries. On their Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioners
claim to have acted in self-defense under Article 11 of the RPC.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acted in self-defense under Article 11 of the

RPC.

RULING: No. We find petitioners' claims of self-defense and defense of their

relative, Mercedes, to be sorely wanting. A person invoking self defense (or
defense of a relative) admits to having inflicted harm upon another person.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an accused must establish: "(1) unlawful

aggression on the part of the victim;(2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense." Defense of a
relative under Article 11 (2) of the RPC requires the same first two (2) requisites as
self-defense and, in lieu of the third "in case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein."

Petitioners' entire defense rests on proof that it was Jesus who initiated an assault
by barging into the premises of petitioners' residences, hacking Victor's door, and
threatening physical harm upon petitioners and their companions. That is, that
unlawful aggression originated from Jesus.

Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor, the beating dealt
to him by petitioners and their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what
would have sufficed to neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary
means to repel his supposed aggression. Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the
second requisite of self-defense and of defense of a relative.
CASE # 2 – Nacnac Vs People- ( Self Defense)

FACTS: The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo had a history of violent aggression and
drunkenness. He once attacked a former superior, P/Insp. Laurel Gayya, for no
apparent reason. On or about February 20, 2003, in Dingras, Ilocos Norte, SPO2
Nacnac being the highestranking officer during the shift, was designated the
officer-of-the-day. In the evening, he saw SPO1 Espejo(Victim) and SPO1 Basilio
take the patrol tricycle from the station grounds.

He stopped them from using the tricycle. SPO1 Espejo said he needed it to go to
Laoag City to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar. SPO2
Nacnac refused and told them that they are needed at the station and, at any rate, he
should stay at the station because he was drunk. This was not received well by the
victim. He cursed SPO2 Nacnac. The victim alighted from the tricycle. SPO1
Basilio did the same, went inside the office, and left the two alone. SO1 Espejo
drew his gun, SPO2 Nacnac fired warning shots and eventually shot SPO1 Espejo
in the head, after the latter ignored the warning shots.

RTC found him guilty of Homicide.

Petitioner appealed, which the CA dismissed for lack of merit.

On his Petition for Review, Petitioner argues that he did not receive a just and fair
judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense under Article 11 of the

RPC.

RULING: Yes. As testified by the victim’s companion, SPO1 Basilio, petitioner

ordered him and the victim not to leave because they were on duty. SPO1 Basilio
also confirmed that the victim was inebriated and had uttered invectives in
response to petitioner’s lawful order.

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.

To successfully invoke self-defense, another requisite is that the means employed

by the accused must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the extent of
the attack sought to be averted. Supporting petitioner’s claim of self-defense is the
lone gunshot wound suffered by the victim.

The last requisite for self-defense to be appreciated is lack of sufficient

provocation on the part of the person defending himself or herself. 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.

CASE # 3- People VS People- (Self Defense)

FACTS:
Pulomeda’s Version

Prosecution eyewitness Alejandro Pulomeda testified that on November 6, 1992,

he went to Jaspe Metalcraft Industries (Jaspe) at Pavia, Iloilo, He intended to ask
assistance from his friend, Serafin Hubines. As he was approaching Hubines, he
saw Jimmy Rubiso shoot Hubines for a total of six times. Pulomeda ran back
home, and on the following morning narrated everything that transpired to
Hubines’ father.

PO3 Ananias Gallaza and Patrolman Danilo Opong also quickly arrived at the
scene afterwards.

Rubiso’s Version

Appellant has been working as a welder at the Jaspe Light and Steel Industries. On
November 6, 1992, while hewas welding a tiller, Serafin Hubines, Jr. passed by
and kicked it. When he confronted appellant, the latter asked, "Why, do you want
to fight?" Then Hubines boxed appellant on his chest. He fell down on a sitting
position. At that point, Hubines pulled his gun. Appellant immediately stood up
and held Hubines’ hands. They grappled for its possession and both fell on the
ground. Then the gun exploded. According to appellant, he was not sure who
"caused" the shot. He stood up and saw Hubines lying on the ground full of blood.
He walked a few steps and met PO3 Danilo Opong. Appellant told the latter that he
was only defending himself

Resty Amado, also a worker in the same compound, corroborated appellant’s

testimony.

The lower court found the accused guilty of the crime of Murder

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense under Article 11 of the

RPC.

RULING: No. Appellant insists that when the victim pulled out his gun,
Assuming that Hubines had a gun and pulled it, however, records show that he did
not manifest any aggressive act which may have imperiled the life and limb of
herein appellant. A threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person
was about to be attacked, is not sufficient.

Another factor which militates against appellant’s claim of self-defense is the

nature and number of wounds suffered by the victim. Autopsy found that the
victim’s body sustained six (6) bullet wounds. One bullet wound was on the right
forehead and another on the left side of the neck. Four (4) bullet wounds were
along the thoraco abdominal region.

The location and presence of gunshot wounds on the body of the victim eloquently
refute appellant’s allegation of self-defense. It is an oft repeated rule that the
presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their seriousness would
negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill.

We thus agree with the trial court that appellant, in killing the victim, did not act in
self-defense.

CASE # 4- Baxinela vs People- (Fulfilment of Duty)

FACTS:
Baxinela’s Version

October 19, 1996, Baxinela and Inspector Regimen were approached by Romy
Manuba, informing them of a drunkard creating trouble by drawing his gun in
Playboy Disco Club. Upon arriving at the location, they saw SPO4 Legarda and
Toto Dalida and were invited to the table. Later, they saw a man named Ruperto F.
Lajo with a gun tucked on his back, upon confronting the man asking him about
his identity and why he is carrying a gun, the man was silent and instead drew his
gun, but Baxinela drew his gun first and shot Lajo critically wounding him. After
seeing his ID on Lajo’s wallet, they instructed the security personnel of the club to
take Lajo to the hospital, while they report the incident to Kalibo Poice Station.
Insp. Joel Regimen, Romy Manuba, SPO4 Nepomuceno Legarda testified to
Baxinela’s story.

Prosecution’s Version

Abelardo Alvarez, Rolando Gabriel, Salvador Advincula collectively testified that

contrary to Baxinela’s testimony, he was already at the club for hours prior to the
incident, and he already had his gun drawn out before asking Lajo’s identity and
why he carried a gun, to which Lajo responded "I am MIG” but Baxinela still shot
him and taking his wallet to see his identification card.

RTC ruled that SPO2 Baxinela was guilty of the crime Homicide and considering
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and provocation.

On appeal, CA affirmed and modified the conviction disallowing the mitigating

circumstance of sufficient provocation.

Petitioner said he was acting on self-defense and fulfillment of duty under Article
11 paragraphs 1 and 5, respectively.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense and fulfillment of duty

under Article 11 paragraph 1 and 5, respectively.

RULING: No. The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused; and
3) employment of reasonable means to prevent and repel and aggression.

Evidence shows, there was no imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at
that moment. Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the
victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a disadvantage. On this
requisite alone, Baxinela’s defense fails.

Defense of fulfillment of a duty, it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the
injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office.

While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinela’s duty
was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a
public place. Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all
resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if
at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in
the pub. However, although there is incomplete conditions for Article 11 paragraph
5, Article 69 will reduce his penalty by one degree.