Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAW 1 REVIEWER
Basis
o Article 11 expressly states the following do not incur
criminal liability
Article 11.
The following do not incur 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 of his relatives by affinity in
the same degrees, and those by 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 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;
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
41
III. Elements Of Self-Defense
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
IV. FIRST ELEMENT: Unlawful Aggression
A. Meaning Of Unlawful Aggression
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
threatened assault of an immediate or imminent kind.
o There is unlawful aggression when the peril to ones
life, limb, or right is either actual or imminent.
o There must be an actually physical assault upon a
person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury.
o In case of threat, the same must be offensive and
positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause
an injury.
o When there is no peril to ones life, limb or right, there
is no unlawful aggression.
o Cases
People v. Flores
The act of the deceased in preventing
the accused from inflicting a retaliatory
blow is not unlawful aggression
US v. Padilla
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
42
B. Unlawful Aggression Is An Indispensable Requisite
There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless
the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself.
For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be
assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent
manner.
If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or
repel.
The unlawful aggression must have come from the person who
was either injured or killed.
C. Aggression Must Be Unlawful
Two kinds of aggression:
o Unlawful see Meaning of unlawful
D. Peril To Ones Life And Limb
Peril to ones life: must be ACTUAL and IMMINENT.
o Actual peril the danger must be present, that is,
actually in existence.
US v. Jose Laurel
Facts: A kisses Bs sweetheart and runs
away. At a later date, B confronts A. B
eventually hits A with a cane. After
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
43
E. What Constitutes Unlawful Aggression
If there is no imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the
accused, there is no unlawful aggression
o People v. Riduca
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
44
F. Retaliation Does Not Amount To Self-Defense
Retaliation is not self-defense.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
Retaliation is done after the aggression has ended.
o The aggression has already ceased thus the imminent
and real danger to the life or limb of the accused has
also ceased
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
o People v. Ferrer
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
45
G. Source Of Unlawful Aggression
Unlawful aggression must have come from the person who
attacked the accused.
o If the unlawful aggression came from the accused, the
accused could not have been acting in self-defense.
Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the
claim of self-defense.
o People v. Diaz
Fact: Accused is armed with a gun and a bolo.
Deceased had nothing but a pig, which he
refused to give up.
Ruling: It is improbable that the deceased
would have began assaulting the accused given
the situation.
o People v. Ardisa
Fact: Deceased is a 55 year old man with ulcer
who had already lost his right hand in the
conflict with the accused.
Ruling: It is hard to believe that the deceased
would have continued attacking the accused
given the circumstances
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists
o When the unlawful aggression no longer exists because
the aggressor runs away, the one defending no longer
has a right to wound or kill the aggressor
o People v. Alconga
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
46
J. Stand ground when in the right
The law does not require people to retreat when an assailant is
rapidly advancing upon them
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
47
The reason for this is because those who flee incur the
risk of getting attacked from behind
Better to stand your ground and defend
yourself than run away
K. When The Accused Declines To Give Any Statement To The Police
When He Surrenders, His Acts Are Inconsistent With The Plea Of Self
Defense
People v. Manansala
o A protestation of innocence or justification is the logical
and spontaneous reaction of a man who finds himself
in such an unculpatory predicament as that in which
the policemen came upon him still clutching the death
weapon and his victim dying before him.
People v. De la Cruz
o The accused did not act in self defense because if he
had, he would have reported it to the police whom he
passed as he fled from the scene of the incident
L. Physical Fact May Determine Whether The Accused Acted In SelfDefense
People v. Dorico
o Fact: Accused said that deceased was stabbed as he
lunged forward for the bolo accused was holding.
o Ruling: The court did not believe him because the
evidence showed that the deceased was stabbed from
the back.
People v. Perez
o Ruling: Accused did not act in self-defense because the
deceased was shot 13 times despite his gun still being
tucked inside his waistband. Deceased was defenseless
when shot
M. Unlawful Aggression In Defense Of Other Rights
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
48
V. SECOND REQUISITE: Reasonable Necessity Of The Means Employed
To Prevent Or Repel It
Presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression which is
either imminent or actual
o If there is unlawful aggression, there is a need to
prevent or repel it because we are either in actual or
imminent danger
US v. Batungbacal
The law protects not only the person
who repel aggression but also the
person who tries to prevent an
aggression that is expected.
This requisite of self-defense entails necessity.
o There be a necessity of the course of action taken by
the person making a defense.
o There be a necessity of the means used.
o The necessity to take a course of action and to use a
means of defense
US v. Molina
The person attacked is not duty bound
to expose himself to be wounded or
killed.
While the danger to his person or life subsists,
he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel
such danger by wounding his adversary, and if
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
49
A. Necessity Of The Course Of Action Taken
In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason
but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation
o People v. Ocana
Fact: Accused is attacked by deceased while
the former is unarmed. Accused manages to
find a lead pipe and strikes the deceased in a
vital part of the body. Deceased is
subsequently killed.
Ruling: Accused acted reasonably given the
circumstances. There was no time for Accused
to aim for a less vital part of the body because
his life was in danger
There is no necessity when there is no unlawful aggression
o People v. Masangkay
After the accused disarmed the deceased, he
was no longer acting reasonably in self-defense
when he stabbed and killed him.
o People v. Narvaez
Facts: Deceased is chiseling the walls of the
house of the accused. Accused gets a shotgun
and kills the deceased.
Ruling: The means used was not reasonable
because his resistance was disproportionate to
the attack.
Context of the assault matters
o US v. Ah Chong
When the aggressor is disarmed
o If aggressor when disarmed still shows intent to reclaim
the weapon, the aggressor is still showing aggression
(People v. Datinguinoo), but if after being disarmed, the
aggressor shows a refusal to continue fighting, any
attack on the aggressor by the defendant is no longer
justified (People v. Alviar).
When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after the
unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still selfdefense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the
requisites of self-defense were present.
o People v. Del Pilar
Minor wounds inflicted after the aggression
ceased to exist are permitted as long as the
major wounds that led to the death of the
aggressor took place when the aggression had
not yet ceased.
This is because the proximate cause of death
would be the major wounds and not the minor
wounds.
This ruling cannot be applied if the defendant
inflicts a mortal would on the aggressor after
the unlawful aggression has ceased.
Person defending is not expected to control his blow.
o Brownell v. People
One is not required to draw fine distinctions as
to the extent of the injury which a reckless and
infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon
him.
o U.S. v. Macasaet
The accused, in the heat of the encounter at
close quarters, was not in a position to reflect
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
50
B. Necessity Of The Means Used
The means employed by the person making a defense must be
rationally necessary to prevent or repel an aggression.
Instances wherein there was no rational necessity to employ
means used:
U.S. v Apego
A sleeping woman, who was awakened by her
brother-in law grasping her arm, was not
justified in using a knife to kill him as the latter
did not perform any other act which could be
construed as an attempt against her honor.
o People v. Montalbo
When a person was attacked with fist blows
only, there was no reasonable necessity to
inflict upon the assailant a mortal wound with
danger.
o People v. Jaurigue
When a man placed his hand on the upper
thigh of a woman seated on a bench in a
chapel, there was no reasonable necessity to
kill him with a knife because there was no
danger to her chastity or honor at that
moment.
The test of reasonableness of the means used.
o Whether the means employed is reasonable will
depend upon the nature and quality of the aggressors
weapon, physical condition, character, size, other
circumstances and the place and occasion of the
assault.
o Perfect equality between the weapon used by the
defender and the aggressor is not required. What the
law requires is rational equivalence, the imminent
danger and the instinct that moves or impels the
defense.
o The reasonableness of the means employed will
depend upon:
The nature and quality of weapons
The use of a knife when attacked by a
club, rod or stick is reasonable if it cant
o
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
51
Ruling:
Under
such
circumstances, the use of the
shotgun was justified.
Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression is to be interpreted in favor of law-abiding
citizens.
Rule regarding the reasonableness of the necessity of the
means employed when the one defending himself is a peace
officer.
o While the law on self-defense allows a private
individual to prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of
the peace officer requires him to overcome his
opponent.
o A police officer is not required to afford a person
attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal
struggle.
o US v. Mojica
A policeman is justified in using his revolver
against one who is armed with a knife.
o US v. Mendoza
It was held that it is NOT reasonable for a
policeman to kill his assailant who was using a
Calicut
o
VI. THIRD ELEMENT: Lack Of Sufficient Provocation On The Part Of The
Person Defending Himself.
A. Reason For The Third Requisite Of Self Defense.
To be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of
self-defense, the one defending himself must not have given
cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct.
B. Cases In Which 3rd Requisite Is Considered Present
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
52
Vii. Battered Woman Syndrome As A Defense
Republic Act No. 9262- Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act of 2004 provided that:
o Sec 26- Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a
Defense- victim survivors suffering from BWS do not
incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense (courts shall be assisted
by psychiatrists)
Battered woman syndrome, explained
o Battered woman- a woman who is repeatedly
subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do
something he wants her to do without concern for her
rights.
o Personality traits of a battered woman-
Low self-esteem
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
53
Iii. Elements Of Defense Of Relatives
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it
3. In case of provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making a defense had no part therein
IV. Defense Of Relatives Also Requires That There Be Unlawful
Aggression.
Of the 3 requisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression
is a sine qua non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified.
When two persons are getting ready to strike each other, there
can be no unlawful aggression (People v. Moro Munabe).
V. Unlawful Aggression Can Be Made To Depend Upon The Honest
Belief Of The One Making A Defense.
When A attacked and wounded B with a dagger but B defended
himself and seriously wounded A. (note: A is the unlawful
aggressor) Then the sons of A came and believed in good faith
that their father was the victim of an unlawful aggression. If
they kill B, they are justified by a mistake of fact.
Vi. Third Element Of Defense Of Relative
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, because the latter was prompted by
some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving the
relative.
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is
immaterial.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
54
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
55
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke
the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or
injury.
o People v. Ricohermoso
Facts: Pio and Severo attacked Geminiano who
was wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced
Marianito, Geminianos son, who had a gun
and grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio,
Severo and Juan were persecuted for murder.
Issue: Can Juan validly invoke the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil?
Held. No. His reliance on that justifying
circumstance is erroneous. He was not avoiding
any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result
from a violation of law by the actor.
There is civil liability under this paragraph. The civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited.
PAR. 5: FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR
OFFICE
I. Elements Fulfillment Of A Duty Or Lawful Exercise Of Right Or
Office:
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.
II. Fulfillment Of A Duty
People v. Felipe Delima
o Facts: Felipe Delima pursued and shot Lorenzo Napilon
who escaped from prison a few days prior to the
III. Lawful Exercise Of Right Or Office
Of Right
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
56
IV. The Actual Invasion Of Property May Consist Of A Mere
Disturbance Of Possession Or Of A Real Dispossession
If its mere disturbance of possession, force may be used
against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the
prescriptive period of an action of forcible entry.
PAR. 6: OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FROM SOME LAWFUL
PURPOSE
I. Elements:
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.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
57
Belief of the accused
Facts: Friend who played a trick on you by grabbing you at
night, and you thinking that it was a threat to your person
hit the person and he died.
Ruling: You are justified in your acts because you did not have
the intent to kill the person, and (assuming) you did not act
negligently.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
58
III. To Constitute Insanity There Must Be Complete Deprivation Of
Intelligence Or That There Be A Total Deprivation Of The Freedom Of
The Will
Complete deprivation of intelligence- the accused is deprived of
reason and without the least discernment.
Mere abnormality of mental faculties is NOT enough, especially
if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts.
IV. Procedure When The Imbecile Or The Insane Committed A Felony
Court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons afflicted.
Court has no power to permit the insane to leave such facility
without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health
that he may be released.
V. Insanity At The Time Of The Commission Of The Felony
Distinguished From Insanity At The Time Of The Trial
When a person is insane at the time of the commission of the
felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.
When he becomes insane only at the time of the trial, he is
criminally liable.
VI. Who Has The Burden Of Proof To Show Insanity?
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
59
The defense must prove the insanity of the accused at the time
of the commission of the crime.
The presumption is always in favor of sanity.
How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the presumption
of sanity?
o In order to ascertain a persons mental condition at the
time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of
the condition of his mind during a reasonable period
both before and after that time.
o Direct testimony is not required.
A. Evidence Of Insanity
The evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the
act under prosecution of to the very moment of its execution.
If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent in its nature,
the presumption of its continuance does not arise.
Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will
be presumed that the offense was committed in one of them.
B. When A Defense Of Insanity Is Not Credible:
People v. Renegado Where appellant, Loreto, testified that
he was acting sanely that morning before he killed Lira after
being confused and losing his senses. Moreover, he was able
to recall most of the incidents that morning. The defense of
insanity is incredible.
People v. Ambal Being able to recall significant events in the
weeks prior to the crime, he was declared sane.
People v. Magallano Where psychiatrists who observed the
accused for a month attested that he did not manifest any odd
behavior and it was evident that he was coherent and
intelligent, the presumption of sanity holds.
People v. Puno In spite of his schizophrenic reaction, his
symptoms were not socially incapacitating and he could
adjust to his environment. He is not legally insane.
VII. Coverage of the terms
A. Dementia Praecox (Schizophrenia) Is Covered By The Term Insanity
When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis (a type of
dementia pracox) homicidal attack is common because of
delusions. During the period of excitement, such person has
not control whatever of his acts.
People v. Bonan An irresistible homicidal impulse was
considered embraced in the term insanity. It may be said that
a person who has lost the power of his will, at the moment,
also lost consciousness of his acts.
B. Schizophrenia, Formerly Called Dementia Praceox
It is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to
distinguish between fantasy and reality and often accompanied
by hallucinations and delusions.
Schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through odd and
bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionality,
often ambivalently directed.
C. Kleptomania
If the unlawful act of the accused is due to mental disease or a
mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the
accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will the
irresistible impulse should be considered covered by insanity.
On the other hand, if the mental defect only diminishes the
exercise of his will-power then kleptomania is only a
mitigating circumstance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
60
II. Age Of Absolute Irresponsibility Raised To Fifteen Years Of Age
Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) raised
the age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15.
Absolute irresponsibility exempts the offender from criminal
liability
PAR. 3: A PERSON OVER 9 AND UNDER 15, UNLESS HE HAS ACTED
WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR SHALL BE
PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLE 80 OF THIS CODE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 3
Absence of Intelligence
II. Par. 3, Art. 12 Of The Revised Penal Code Impliedly Repealed By
Republic Act No. 9344
The age bracket for conditional responsibility is now 15-18
years of age instead of 9-15.
The child is exempted from criminal liability, but not from civil
liability.
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor has
acted with discernment, in order for him to be deprived of this
exempting circumstance.
III. Periods Of Criminal Responsibility
Period
Age
ABSOLUTE
IRRESPONSIBILITY 15 years and below
(infancy)
CONDITIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
(Child in conflict with the law)
FULL RESPONSIBILITY
18 years or over (adolescence) to
70 (maturity)
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
61
Senility the age over 70 years, although said to be the
second childhood is only a mitigated responsibility. It cannot be
considered as similar to infancy which is exempting.
IV. Meaning Of Discernment
Capacity of the child to understand the difference between
right and wrong and its consequences.
A. Determination Of Discernment
The determination of discernment shall take into account the
ability of a child to understand the moral and psychological
components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of
the wrongful act.
B. Discernment & Intent Distinguished
Intent refers to the desired act of the person
Discernment the moral significance that a person ascribes to
the said act.
C. Discernment May Be Shown By:
1. Manner of committing the crime (e.g. minor committed the
crime during nighttime to avoid detection).
2. Conduct of the offender (e.g. a minors perverted character and
satisfaction upon the accomplishment of the act).
D. The Allegation Of With Intent To Kill In The Information Is
Sufficient Allegation Of Discernment
People v. Neito
o Facts: Alleged accused, with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, criminally and feloniously push 8-year-
V. Burden Of Proof Of Age
Any person alleging the age has the burden of proof.
A. Presumption Of Minority
A child shall enjoy all the presumption of minority and all the
rights of a child until proven to be eighteen years or older at
the time of the commission of the offense.
B. Determination Of Age
A childs age shall be determined according to the ff rules:
1. Original or certified true copy of birth certificate.
2. Similar authentic documents (baptismal certificates, school
records)
3. Testimony of a member of the family related to the child by
affinity or consanguinity, testimonies of other persons, physical
appearance of the child and other relevant evidence.
PAR. 4: ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH
DUE CARE, CAUSES INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR
INTENTION.
I. Basis Of Paragraph 4
Lack of negligence and intent
Under this circumstance, the person does not commit either an
intentional felony or a culpable felony.
II. Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
62
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
63
C. Accident And Negligence, Intrinsically Contradictory
Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals
o Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory.
One cannot exist with the other.
People v. Ayaya
o Court held that the absence of any reasonable motive
to prompt said defendant to injure her husband
compelled the court to conclude that in thrusting her
umbrella in the opening of the door, she did so to free
her son from imminent danger of having his head
crushed or being strangle; the injury was caused by a
mere accident.
D. When Claim Of Accident Not Appreciated:
1. People v Taylaran Repeated blows negate claim of wounding
by mere accident.
2. People v. Reyes Accidental shooting is negated by
threatening words preceding it.
PAR. 5: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 5
Complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
Presumption: person is compelled by means of force or
violence to commit a crime.
II. Elements:
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
o Before a force can be considered an irresistible one, it
must produce such an effect upon the individual that,
in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument (reason why hes incapable of committing
the crime)
o In spite of all resistance, it compels the person to obey
or act upon it.
3. Physical force must come from a third person
Example: US v. Caballeros
Facts: Baculi, one of the accused but is not part of the band
which murdered the American school-teachers, was at the
scene of the crime and was made to bury the bodies because
he was struck with the butts of the bands guns.
Held: Baculi was not criminally liable because an outside
irresistible force compelled him to do the said act.
III. FIRST & SECOND ELEMENT: Compulsion Of Irresistible Force
NO Compulsion of irresistible force
People v Sarip
o Pretension of an accused to be threatened with a gun
by a friend doesnt hold when the accused has a rifle at
hand.
IV. THIRD ELEMENT: Physical Force Must Come From A Third Person
Passion or obfuscation cannot be irresistible force
Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion or
obfuscation. Irresistible force must consist of an extraneous
force from a third party.
V. Nature Of Force Required
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
64
PAR. 6: ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY
I. Basis of Paragraph 6
Based on the complete absence of freedom; actus me invite
factus non est meus actus (an act done by me against my will
is not my act.).
Presumption: a person is compelled to commit a crime by
means of intimidation or threat.
II. Elements:
1. Threat which causes the fear is an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which he is required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
III. Elements:
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear.
2. Fear must be real or imminent.
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed.
Example: (US v. Exaltacion)
Facts: Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco swore
allegiance to the Katipunan because of fear of death.
IV. Nature Of Duress As A Valid Defense (People v. Quilloy)
Should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for ones
life or limb.
Should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear.
V. The Accused Must Not Have Opportunity For Escape Or SelfDefense
Compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.
Duress is unavailing where the accused had every opportunity
to run away or resist when he wanted to because he was
armed
When several opportunities are present but accused did not act
upon it, defense of being under intimidation is untenable.
When the accused carries a much stronger weapon that the
one intimidating him, its held that accused did not act under
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Command of Hukbalahap killers cause of uncontrollable fear
because of their ruthless killing nature (People v. Regala)
In treason nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy,
but the fear of imminent death.
VI. Speculative, Fanciful, And Remote Fear Is Not Uncontrollable Fear
Threat must be of a serious character and imminence as to
create in the mind of the defendant an uncontrollable fear and
an infliction of an equal or greater evil would be done upon him
on non-compliance.
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
65
VII. Real, Imminent Or Reasonable Fear
Case of US v. Exaltacion as an example
Threat of future injury is not enough it must be clearly
shown that the compulsion must be of such character as to
leave NO opportunity to escape
VIII. Distinction Between Irresistible Force And Uncontrollable Fear
Irresistible force (par. 5) uses violence or physical force
Uncontrollable fear (par. 6) uses intimidation or threat
PAR. 7: ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY
LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
I. Basis Of Paragraph 7
Accused acts without intent.
II. Elements:
1. Act is required by law to be done.
2. Person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause
III. When Prevented By
A. Some Lawful Cause
(Vide, Sec. 24[d], Rule 130, Rules of Court)
A confessed to a Filipino priest that theres an ongoing
conspiracy against the government, which he is a part of. Under
the law, one is required to tell the government about the said
act. Non-compliance of this law by the Filipino priest exempts
him from criminal liability because he is bound by his
professional capacity for non-disclosure of confessions.
B. Some Insuperable Cause
Municipal president detained the offended party for three days
and was not able to comply with the 18-hour requirement
because of the no means of transportation (US v. Vicentillo)
insuperable cause is the no transportation.
A mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
debility left her child in a thicket who subsequently died is not
liable for infanticide because of the impossibility to take the
child home. (People v. Bandian) insuperable cause is the
severe dizziness and extreme debility.
OTHER MATTERS
I. In All The Exempting Circumstances, Intent Is Wanting In The Agent
Of The Crime
Intent presupposed the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence.
II. Distinction Between Justifying And Exempting Circumstances
Justifying circumstances
o Person does not transgress the law, he does not
commit any crime in the eyes of the law.
o There is nothing unlawful in the act as well as the
intention.
o Act is in itself just and lawful.
o There is neither a crime nor a criminal.
o No civil liability except for par. 4 (causing damage to
another in state of necessity).
Exempting circumstances
o There is a crime but NO criminal liability.
o Act is not justified but the actor is not criminally liable.
o There is civil liability except in pars. 4 and 7(causing
injury by mere accident; failing to perform an act
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
66
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
67
D. Entrapment And Instigation Distinguished
Instigation
o Instigator practically induces he would-be accused into
the commission of the offense and instigator becomes
a co-principal.
o Bar to prosecution and conviction of lawbreaker.
o Law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime
and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution.
o Exempts the criminal from liability.
o An absolutory cause.
Entrapment
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
68
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
69