Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)

Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

IV. Justifying Circumstances

Definitions

Modifying Circumstances

The RPC subscribes to the classical theory; hence, there is predetermined penalty for
each crime without regard to the moral state of the offender.

It is the office of modifying circumstances to increase or decrease the penalty in

accordance with the presence or absence of circumstances showing the moral,
emotional, and mental state of the offender.

1. Justifying circumstances

2. Exempting circumstances

3. Mitigating circumstances

4. Aggravating circumstances

5. Alternative circumstances

6. Absolutory causes

7. Extenuating circumstances

Justifying Circumstances

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any

criminal liability:

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

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it.

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

himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,

ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,

provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first

Page 1 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. 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:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of

preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for

some lawful purpose.

Justifying circumstances

Those where 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.

Any person acting under any of the justifying circumstances does not incur criminal
liability. The act of a person under any of the justifying circumstances is in accordance
with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law is free from
both criminal and civil liability, except under Article 11, paragraph 4, where the civil liability
is to be shared by the persons who were benefited by the act.

In justifying circumstances, there is

- no crime
- no criminal
- no criminal liability
- no civil liability (except for Art. 11(4))

Since there is no crime, there is no criminal; hence, he/she should not be called an
“offender” but merely an “actor”.

Basis for the justifying circumstances: lack of criminal intent

1. Self-defense

2. Defense of a relative

3. Defense of a stranger

4. State of necessity

5. Fulfillment of a duty

6. Obedience to a lawful order of a superior

7. Battered woman syndrome (R.A. No. 9262)

Page 2 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

Self-defense

Reason: The State cannot afford to give 24-hour protection to its inhabitants and cannot
always come to the aid of the person under attack. He then has to defend himself by
following his instinct of self-preservation. The State recognizes this inherent right of a
person.

Requisites of self-defense

1. unlawful aggression from the victim (condition sine qua non)

2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or to repel it

3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

First requisite: Unlawful aggression

There is no self-defense if there is no unlawful aggression. If there is no unlawful

aggression, there is nothing to repel (which is the second element of self-defense). The
act must be unjustified and sufficient to imperil one’s life, limb, or right.

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance
of self-defense.

Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or

imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Two kinds of unlawful aggression

1. Actual unlawful aggression: an attack with physical force or with a weapon which
shows the positive determination of the aggressor to cause injury
- it partakes of an act that is positively strong and poses real danger to the life or
limb of another person

2. Imminent unlawful aggression (immediate unlawful aggression): an attack that

is impending or at the point of happening

Three elements of unlawful aggression

1. there must be a physical or material attack or assault

2. the attack or assault must be actual or at least imminent

3. the attack or assault must be unlawful

Retaliation: the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
when the attack happened

Unlawful aggression vs. Retaliation

Unlawful aggression Retaliation
unlawful aggression was still existing the unlawful aggression begun by the
when the aggressor was injured by the injured party had already ceased when the
person making the defense accused attacked him

Page 3 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

there must be no appreciable time interval

between the unlawful aggression and the
killing

Note: When the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill
or even wound the former aggressor.

Illustrations (no unlawful aggression)

1. Mere thrusting of one’s hand into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a
weapon is not unlawful aggression.

2. Mere cocking of a gun is not an unlawful aggression.

The mere cocking of an M-14 rifle by the victim without aiming it at the Vice Governor
whom the accused was allegedly protecting does not constitute unlawful
aggression. (Almeda vs. CA)

3. Ryan shouted at Santino, “Wag kang magtatapang-tapangan dyan, papatayin kita!”

Without saying anything more, Santino drew his gun from his waist and shot Ryan
in the leg. Ryan’s wound was not life threatening.

There is neither actual nor imminent unlawful aggression. Verbal abuse without
physical attack does not constitute unlawful aggression. The statement, “Papatayin
kita,” does neither constitute an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an
offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause injury,
nor an impending attack, which is offensive and positively strong.

4. When the accused accepts the challenge, the prior aggression of his opponent
cannot be considered unlawful aggression. Thus, the claim of self-defense cannot
prosper.

When there is an agreement to fight, which is the result of provocation and an

accepted challenge, the aggression is reciprocal and legitimate as between two
opposing parties.

Second requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel

the aggression

1. there be a necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense

2. there be a necessity of the means used

Rational equivalence

Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not mean material commensurability
between the means of attack and defense, what the law requires is rational equivalence
which is determined by the emergency or imminent danger to which the person attacked
is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense.

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

Page 4 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

Test of reasonableness

1. nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor

2. aggressor’s physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances

3. circumstances of those of the person defending himself

4. place and occasion of the assault

Illustrations

1. When the accused is suddenly attack in his sleep, in complete darkness, and in his
paramount fear, he struck wildly and blindly at his assailant who turned out to be his
wife. His frenzy was justified by the circumstances.

2. The accused uses a shotgun to allegedly drive off unarmed persons aggressively
trespassing in and causing damage to his property, the means taken was neither
reasonable nor necessary.

Third requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself

Rationale: 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.

Provocation: any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone

Illustrations

1. Oca calls Piolo “pogi” although Piolo is ugly. Piolo got pissed and stabbed Oca.

This constitutes provocation. A praise undeserved is slander in disguise. However,

this is not sufficient provocation and it does not justify Piolo’s act of stabbing Oca.

2. Romeo who was in a joking mood disheveled the hair of Samson. Samson got mad
and said, “Guluhin mo na ang buhay ko, huwag lang ang buhok ko,” and stabbed
Romeo.

The act of Romeo in disheveling the hair of Samson was provocative but it was not
sufficient enough for Samson to stab Romeo.

Illustration (self-defense)

Pat. Derick saw Eugene, an inmate, escaping from jail. Pat. Derick ordered Eugene to
surrender. Instead of doing so, Eugene attacked Pat. Derick with a bamboo spear.
Eugene missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Derick. But before Eugene could strike again,
Pat. Derick shot and killed him.

Pat. Derick is not liable for the death of Eugene. Self-defense can be claimed as there is
an imminent and great peril on the life of Pat. Derick.

Page 5 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

Subjects of self-defense

1. defense of persons

2. defense of rights

3. defense of property

Defense of honor/persons

It encompasses defense of one’s chastity or reputation.

Defense of property

The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the property,
although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner of the premises, so
long as all the elements for justification must however be present.

Illustrations (other subjects of self-defense)

1. Violent entry to another’s house at nighttime by a person who is armed with a bolo;
and forcing his way into the house, shows he was ready and looking for trouble.

2. Placing a hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful aggression.

3. A slap on the face is also considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity.

Defense of a relative

Reason: It is found not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse
of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those
close to them by ties of blood.

Requisites of defense of a relative

1. unlawful aggression against a relative

2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

3. in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the
defense had no part therein

Note: The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.

Relatives who can be defended

1. spouse

2. ascendants

3. descendants

Page 6 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

4. legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the

same degree

Note: Death of one spouse does not terminate the relationship by affinity
established between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased.

5. relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree

a. great great grandparent

b. great aunt and uncle

c. first cousin

d. grandnephew and grandniece

Illustration

1. Kenneth slapped Lenar and thereafter attacked him with a knife. Kenneth hacked
Lenar twice and inflicted injuries upon Lenar. Kenneth continued his attack upon
Lenar. Thereupon, Lenar defended himself and parried the attack of Kenneth by
using his bolo. When Lenar was about to hack Kenneth, that was the time when
Michael, the brother of Kenneth, arrived. Before Lenar could hack Kenneth, Michael
shot Lenar who died as a result.

Michael is not liable. Although Kenneth, his brother, was the aggressor, Michael did
not know about it. When he arrived, he saw that the life of his brother was in danger.
As things appeared to Michael, there was no aggression on the part of Kenneth
which he had to repel. He acted in pursuant to his honest belief. Under the
circumstances, the use of the gun was a reasonable means to repel the aggression.
Michael had no part in the provocation made by Kenneth.

Defense of a stranger

Reason: The ordinary person would not stand idly by and see his companion killed
without attempting to save his life.

Stranger: any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under Article 11,
paragraph 2 of the RPC

Requisites of defense of a stranger

1. unlawful aggression

2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

3. the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

Third requisite: The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive

The law requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or generous
motive.

Page 7 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

Illustrations

1. During a student rally, PO1 Cardo, a policeman, hit Carissa, a student, with a
truncheon to disperse the students for conducting rally without permit. Seeing what
PO1 Cardo did, Cham hit the forearm of the policeman with a bottle to prevent him
from further hurting Carissa.

Carissa is not liable for resistance because of the justifying circumstance of defense
of a stranger. The force used by PO1 Cardo to disperse the students is not
reasonable; hence, it constitutes unlawful aggression.

2. Aldrin chanced upon three men who were attacking Brian with fist blows. Carl, one
of the men, was about to stab Brian with a knife. Not knowing that Brian was actually
the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, Aldrin
shot Carl as the latter was about to stab Brian.

Aldrin may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was
not involved in the fight and he shot Carl when the latter was about to stab Brian.
There being no indication that Aldrin was induced by revenge, resentment or any
other evil motive in shooting Carl, his act is justified.

Avoidance of greater evil or injury (State of necessity)

Requisites of avoidance of greater evil or injury

1. the evil sought to be avoided actually exists

Note: Greater evil must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence or
violation of law by the actor.

2. the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it

3. there is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

Note: It is only under this provision that the person defending himself incurs civil liability.
Such liability is borne by the person benefited.

Illustrations

1. To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned on the road, John
swerved his car to the right towards the graveled shoulder, killing two bystanders.

John is entitled to the justifying circumstance of state of necessity. John, in saving

his life, is in effect avoiding evil. This evil is greater than killing two individuals
because the instinct of self-preservation dictates that the life of the actor is of greater
importance than that of another. There is no other practical and less harmful means
to save his life. John has no choice but to swerve to the right to avoid crashing into
a truck.

2. Esther was set to have an arranged marriage with Evan. Esther eloped with Ethan
after all the wedding preparations with Evan was made. She was a no-show at the
church wedding. Esther was charged with slander by deed.

Esther is not liable for slander by deed. The doctrine of state of necessity is
applicable. There was a necessity on the part of Esther to avoid a loveless marriage.

Page 8 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

The prospect of living a marital life in perpetual agony constitutes an injury greater
than done to avoid it.

Fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of right or office

Requisites of fulfillment of a duty or lawful exercise of right or office

1. the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office

2. 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

Illustrations

1. The executor of death convicts at the Bilibid Prison cannot be held liable for
homicide or murder for the executions performed by him because he was merely
acting in lawful exercise of his office.

2. If a prisoner who was escaping disregarded the warning shots of the jail guard and
there is no other remedy except to fire at him to prevent him from escaping.

The guard is not criminally liable. It is his duty to prevent the escape of the prisoner
and in doing so, he has the right to employ any means which is not capricious,
arbitrary, and unreasonable.

3. The prisoner who escaped was fired upon by the guard and he was hit on the thigh.
Thereafter, the guard fired again resulting to the death of the prisoner.

There was no absolute necessity to fire again as the prisoner could then easily be
captured, given he was hit on the thigh. The custodian is not justified from killing,
but he is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete
performance of duty.

Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

Requisites of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

1. an order has been issued by a superior

2. such order must be for some lawful purpose

3. the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Illustrations

1. The Court issued a warrant of arrest against an accused. In implementing the

warrant, the police officer may use reasonable force necessary for its execution. The
act of government authorities in obedience to lawful order of a superior is justified.

2. Christine, the Commissioner on Audit, instructed Daphne, her secretary, to falsify

documents. Christine furnished the information and data which Daphne used for the
falsification.

Page 9 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

Daphne is liable for falsification inasmuch as the instructions given to her by

Christine are not lawful. In order to be exempt from criminal liability, the obedience
must be a compliance with a lawful order, and that the superior acted within the
scope of his authority.

3. A police officer, upon order of the police chief, killed a suspect for not giving an
extrajudicial confession.

The police officer is criminally liable, because the order to execute the suspect is
illegal and the police officer is not bound to obey it.

Battered woman syndrome

Section 26, R.A. No. 9262

Sec. 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.

Battery: any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to
physical and psychological or emotional distress

Battered woman syndrome: a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and

behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse

Elements of battered woman syndrome

1. the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman

2. the offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of

harassment against the woman

3. the harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress

to her

Three phases of the “cycle of violence”

1. Tension Building Phase

a. Where minor battering occurs, it could be a verbal or slight physical abuse

or another form of hostile behavior.

b. The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior, or by simply staying out of the way.

c. But this proves to be unsuccessful as it only gives the batterer the notion
that he has the right to abuse her.

2. Acute Battering Incident

a. Characterized by brutality, destructiveness, and sometimes death.

Page 10 of 11
 Criminal Law Book I (CLAW 3)
Prepared by: Atty. Shally Mae P. Villa, RPm

b. The battered woman has no control; only the batterer can stop the violence.

c. The battered woman realizes that she cannot reason with him and
resistance would only worsen her condition.

3. Tranquil/Loving (or at least non-violent) Phase

a. Characterized by guilt on the part of the batterer and forgiveness on the part
of the woman.

b. The batterer may show a tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner
and the woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will never
happen again and that her partner will change for the better.

Four characteristics of the syndrome

1. the woman believes that the violence was her fault

2. the woman has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere

3. the woman fears for her life and/or her children’s lives

4. the woman has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient

References:

Campanilla, M.B., Criminal Law Reviewer Volume I (2020)

Estrada, A., Criminal Law Book I of the Revised Penal Code Made Easy for Students, Bar
Examinees & Practitioners (2008)

San Beda Law, Criminal Law Memory Aid (2018)

San Beda Law, Criminal Law Memory Aid (2019)

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

UP College of Law Bar Operations Commission, Criminal Law (2020)

Page 11 of 11