Art.

11 – Justifying Circumstances
Justifying circumstance – one in which the act of
person is considered in accordance with law,
thus, no criminal and civil liability

In par. 4, civil liability is borne by person who

benefited from the act

Distinguished from Exempting circumstances under

Art. 12 of RPC
In exempting circumstance, act is not considered lawful,
but accused has no criminal liability because of some
circumstance showing lack of voluntariness, knowledge,
intent, or negligence.
In Exempting circumstances, no criminal liability but
there’s civil liability, except pars. 4 and 7 of Art. 12

Justifying circumstance is a matter of defense and

affirmative allegation which the one asserting it,
the accused, must prove in order to avoid
criminal liability
Requisites:

1. Unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or

repel it (referring to unlawful aggression)

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person

defending himself
Reasons for self-defense being a justifying
circumstance

▪ Self-preservation or man’s instinct to protect and save

his person or rights from danger

▪ Impossible for the State to prevent aggression on all

citizens or foreigners in all cases
1st requisite - Unlawful aggression – indispensable requisite
in self-defense

Without unlawful aggression, there’s nothing to

prevent or repel

Prevent – refers to imminent attack

Repel – refers to actual attack

Actual unlawful aggression – an attack with physical

force or with weapon, an offensive act that
positively shows the intent of the aggressor to
cause injury
Mere drawing of gun – not unlawful aggression

Exception: People vs. Nacnac – aggressor is a trained

policeman, drunk and known to be a disobedient
colleague

Act of pulling something out – not unlawful

aggression
The aggression must be unlawful;
if lawful, the act committed by person will not be
considered justifying circumstance

Retaliation – not a valid case of self-defense

Instances where there’s aggression but no valid

self-defense
▪ Aggression is not unlawful
▪ Unlawful aggression has ceased (retaliation)
▪ Aggression did not come from person attacked
by accused
Nature, location and extent of wound of accused
and victim prove or rebut claim of self-defense

2nd requisite - Reasonable necessity of means

employed – used to prevent or repel an imminent
or actual attack

Reasonableness depends on circumstances

3rd requisite – Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person
defending
Self-defense present in the following cases:
▪ No provocation at all from person defending
▪ Provocation was given by person defending
but it’s not sufficient
▪ Sufficient provocation was given but not by
person defending (by some other person)
▪ Provocation was given by person defending but
it was not proximate and immediate to
unlawful aggression
Battered Woman Syndrome – victims/survivors
found suffering from this syndrome don’t incur
criminal and civil liability despite absence of
elements of justifying circumstance of self-defense

Relate to RA No. 9262, Anti Violence Against

Women and their Children Act of 2004
First two requisites (Unlawful aggression and
reasonable necessity) same as in Self-defense

Relatives – spouse, ascendants, descendants,

legitimate/natural/adopted brothers or sisters,
relatives by affinity in the same degree, relative by
consanguinity within 4th civil degree

Third requisite – in case there’s provocation given by

relative, the person making the defense had no part
in such provocation
Like in Defense of Relatives, the first two requisites
(Unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity)
same as in Self-defense

Third requisite – person defending the stranger was

not induced by revenge, resentment or other
evil motive

Stranger – anyone not in the list of “relatives”

Requisites:
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. No other practical and less harmful means of
prevent it (referring to evil or injury feared)
Evil sought to be avoided should not be due to
accused’s willful act or negligence
In the justifying circumstance of Avoidance of greater
evil, there is no criminal liability, but there’s civil liability,
to be borne by the person/s benefited by the act
Requisites:

1. Person acted in performance of duty or lawful

exercise of right or office

2. Injury caused or offense committed is the necessary

consequence of due performance of duty or lawful
exercise of office
Requisites:

1. Order has been issued by superior

2. Order must be for some lawful purpose

3. Means used to carry out the order is lawful

Effect of number of requisites present:

▪ All requisites present – complete Justifying

circumstance, no criminal liability (Art. 11)

▪ Majority of requisites present – incomplete

Justifying circumstance, penalty is lowered/reduced
by “degree” due to Privileged Mitigating
Circumstance under Art. 69
Effect of number of requisites present:

▪ One requisite present – incomplete Justifying

circumstance, penalty is lowered/reduced by “period”
due to Ordinary Mitigating Circumstance under
Art. 13, par. 1

Note: In Self-defense, defense of relative and defense of

stranger, the one requisite present must be
Unlawful Aggression

▪ No requisite present – accused completely liable, no

justifying or mitigating circumstance