1

ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (VIDEO Requisites of SELF-DEFENSE:

DISCUSSION 3) 1.1 Unlawful aggression: on the part of the person
injured or killed

Article 11: Justifying Circumstances: The following do - Presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine
not incur criminal liability: where the act of a person is qua non: There can be no self-defense, complete or
in accordance with law such that said person is deemed incomplete, unless the victim has committed an
not to have violated the law. unlawful aggression against the person defending
himself for if there is no unlawful aggression, there is
1. Self-defense nothing to prevent or to repel.
2. Defense of relatives (spouse, ascendants, - Aggression must be unlawful and real; it is equivalent
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or to assault or at least threatened assault of an
sisters or relatives by affinity and by consanguinity up immediate and imminent kind. It is an actual, sudden,
to the 4th civil degree) unexpected attack and not merely threatening or
3. Defense of stranger provided such defense is intimidating.
not motivated with resentment or revenge - There must be actual physical force or actual use of
4. To avoid greater evil or injury provided that weapon. Thus, insulting words addressed to the
such act is indeed greater than the defensive act to be accused, no matter how objectionable they may have
done, and such injury is actual been, without physical assault could not co unlawful
aggression.
5. Fulfillment of duty

6. Obedience to an order issued by a superior

for lawful cause * Slap on the face is considered unlawful aggression.

*Justifying circumstances do not incur criminal liability;

hence no crime is committed, no criminal. - Retaliation is not self-defense and therefore not a
*Burden of proof is upon the person who claims such justifying circumstance. In retaliation, aggression that
just circumstance. was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him; in self-defense,
aggression was still existing when aggressor was
injured or disabled by person making defense.
1. SELF-DEFENSE
- The defense should be simultaneous with the attack
- Burden of proof is on the person who alleges self-
or else, it becomes retaliation.
defense (accused). He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of the - Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of
prosecution. accused allegedly inflicted by injured party may belie
the claim of self-defense.
- Self-defense must be proven with certainty by
sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence that - When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part exists, because the aggressor runs away, the one
of the person invoking it. making a defense has no more right to kill or even to
wound the former aggressor.
- Self-defense includes not only the defense of his own
person (his body) but also of his lawful rights.

- Self-defense is considered to be lawful as the State

cannot prevent aggression on its citizens and then offer
protection to the person unjustly attacked. It cannot be
conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful
aggression without offering any a
 2

1.2 Reasonable necessity on the means used - Cases where self-defense may be raised based on 3rd
requisite:
- Based on the reason of repelling or preventing the
attack a. No provocation at all was given to aggressor
by person defending himself
- The second requisite of defense means that (1) there
be a necessity of the course of action taken by the b. Even if provocation was given, it was not
person making a defense, and (2) there be a necessity sufficient or Even if provocation was sufficient, it was
of the means used. BOTH MUST BE REASONABLE. not given by the person defending himself

- In emergencies where the person or life of another is c. Even if provocation given by the person
imperiled, human nature does not act upon processes defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate
of formal reason but obedience to instinct of self- to the act of aggression.
preservation. The reasonableness of the necessity to
take a course of action and reasonableness of necessity
of means used depends upon the circumstances of the *Battered woman Syndrome as defense (RA 9262)
case.

2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
* Defense of person or rights does not necessarily
mean the killing of the unlawful aggressor but the Basis of justification: it is founded not only upon
person defending himself cannot be expected to think humanitarian sentiment but also upon the impulse of
clearly so as to control his blow. blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of
great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties
of blood.
- Test of Reasonableness:

a. nature and quality of the weapon - Who can be defended?

b. physical condition, size, character of a. Spouse
aggressor
b. Ascendants
c. other circumstances
c. Descendants

d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and

*Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent sisters or relatives by affinity (parents-in-law, son or
or repel unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in daughter-in-law, or brother or sister-in-law)
favor of law-abiding citizens.
e. Relatives by consanguinity within 4th civil
degree
1.3 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused
- Requisites:
Reason: when the person defending himself from
attack by another gave sufficient provocation to the a. Unlawful aggression
latter, the former is also to be blamed for having given b. Reasonable necessity of means employed to
cause for the aggression. To be entitled of benefit of prevent or repel it
justifying circumstance, the one defending himself
must not have given cause for the aggression by his c. In case provocation was given by person
unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking assailant. attacked; the one making a defense had no part therein

3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

- Who are strangers?

 3

Any person not included in the enumeration of 5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

relatives in paragraph 2. Hence, even a close friend or a
- Requisites:
distant relative is a stranger. (kahit boypren, girlpren)
a. Accused acted in the performance of duty or
- Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may
in lawful exercise of a right or office
do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by
and see his companion killed without attempting to b. Injury caused or offense committed be the
save his life. necessary consequence of due performance of duty or
lawful exercise of such right or office

- Requisites:
*Shooting an offender who refuses to surrender
a. Reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent or repel it

b. Unlawful aggression *Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is

justified in using force as reasonably necessary to
c. Person defending must not be induced with
secure and detain offender, overcome his resistance,
revenge, resentment or evil motive
prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and
protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is never
justified in using necessary force in treating him with
*Important caveat: Person defending must not be
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means
induced with resentment, revenge or evil motive.
when arrest could be effected otherwise.
Hence, even if a person has a standing grudge against
the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a
stranger from serious bodily harm or possible death,
6. OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER FROM A
third requisite of defense of stranger still exists. The
SUPERIOR
third requisite will be lacking if such person was
prompted by his grudge against assailant, because - Requisites:
alleged defense of stranger would only be a pretext.
a. Order has been issued by superior

b. Such order must be for some lawful purpose

4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
c. Means used by subordinate to carry out said
- Evil sought to be avoided actually exists. order is lawful
- Injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it.

- The greater evil should not be brought about by *Both the person who gives the order and the person
negligence or imprudence of the actor who executes it, must be acting within the limitations
prescribed by law (Pp v. Wilson and Dolores)

*This paragraph however, incurs civil liability but the

civil liability is borne by persons benefited. *When the order is not for a lawful purpose,
subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable. However,
if subordinate is carrying out an illegal order of his
superior and was not aware the illegality of the order
and that he was not negligent, he is not liable.