Article 11: Justifying Circumstances Section One: Definition of Terms Imputability the quality by which an act may be ascribed

d to a person as its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done and may therefore be put down to the doer as his very own. Responsibility it is the obligation of taking the penal and civil consequences of the crime. Guilt an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. 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. There no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Article 11 where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act. An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is on the accused who must prove it by clear and convincing evidence; There is both NO crime and NO criminal; Basis: Lack of Criminal intent. First, Unlawful aggression; Second, Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it; Third, Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Rights included in self-defense: Self defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus, it includes: The right of honor. A slap on the face is considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious personal attack; a physical assault, coupled with a willful disgrace; and it may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a persons dignity, rights, and safety (Rugas vs. People, G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004). 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. All the elements for justification must however be present (People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389, 1983).

Subjects of Self Defense: (PPRH) Defense of Person Defense of Property Defense of Rights Defense of Honor

Paragraph 1: Self - Defense Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that that the following circumstances concur:

Note 1) what is important is not the duality of the attack but whether the means employed is reasonable to prevent the attack; Note 2) Self Defense is lawful because: o Impulse of self-preservation; o State cannot provide protection for each of its constituents Stand ground when in the right the law does not require a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. Reason: He runs the risk of being attacked in the by the aggressor. Requisites of Self Defense: Unlawful Aggression (condition sine qua non): o Kinds of Aggression: Lawful In the exercise of a right In the fulfillment of a duty Unlawful Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (if by a peace officer, reasonable necessity of the means employed to overcome opponent); and Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind which is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.

Actual that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence. Imminent the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late. Must come from the person attacked by the accused. No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight. o The challenge to fight must be accepted; o But aggression which is ahead of a stipulated time and place is unlawful. Not merely oral threats or threatening stance or posture. o Merely belief of an impending attack is not sufficient. In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression. o E.g. There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy gun, provided that the accused believed it to be a real gun.

REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT) It involves two elements, necessity for the course of action and necessity of the means employed, which should be reasonable. In determining reasonable means, some factors are to be considered such as: (PENIS) o Presence of imminent danger;

UNLAWFUL AGRESSION Equivalent to an actual physical assault; or

o Emergency to which the person defending himself has been exposed to; o Nature and quality of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the aggression; o Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation; o Size and/or physical character of the aggression compared to the accused and other circumstances that can be considered showing disparity between aggression and accused. This element should be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citizen. Perfect equality between the weapons used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required, neither is the material commensurability between the means of attack and defense. Rational Equivalence is enough. o Reason: Because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think and to calculate. Retreat of Aggressor aggression ceases o EXCEPT: When retreat is made to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack begun, unlawful aggression continues.

B. The latter: Unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by the person makig the defense. There must be no appreciable time interval between the unlawful aggression and the killing.

Republic Act 9262 also known as the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004: Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262). The Law provides for an additional justifying circumstance. Battered Woman Syndrome it refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. Cycle of violence has three phases: (TAT) The Tension building phase; The Acute battering incident; The Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) phase (People v. Genosa G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).

Retaliation vs. Self Defense: A. The former: Inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him.

Four Characteristics of the Syndrome: The woman believes that the violence was her fault; She has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere;

She fears for her life and/or her childrens life; and She has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

Requisites: Unlawful aggression; Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had not part therein.

Note 3) only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the existence of the Battery Woman Syndrome in a woman. Battery refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION Sufficient provocation should not come from the person defending himself/accused, and it must immediately precede the aggression. Defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person defending oneself; if there is no danger to the person or the persons life or limb, defense of property cannot be invoked.

Relatives that can be defended (SADBroSAC4) Spouse Ascendants Descendants Brothers Sisters Affinity in the same degrees. Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity, Relatives by Consanguinity with the fourth civil degree. o The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial. o There is no distinction in the Revised Penal Code whether the descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate; when the law does not distinguish, the courts cannot distinguish.

Paragraph 2: Defense of Relatives 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 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 not part therein.

Justification 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. Paragraph 3: Defense of Stranger

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. Stranger any person not included in the enumeration of relatives under par. 2 of Article 11. Damage to another includes injury to persons and damage to property. A person defending his common-law spouse or adopted child will fall under this paragraph

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. State of Necessity: Article 11, Par. 4 offender deliberately caused damage. Article 12, Par. 4 offender accidentally caused damage. Requisites: That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Requisites: Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. o Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense.

Note 4) it is only in this par. (4) that the person defending himself incurs civil liability, since generally in this article there is no civil liability on the part of the accused. Such liability is borne by the person benefited. Note 5) greater evil must be brought about by the negligence or imprudence or violation of law by the actor. Note 6) the damage caused by the accused in the state of necessity contemplated here is deliberate, while that in Par. 4 of Article 12 is accidentally caused. Paragraph 5: Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

Justification the ordinary person would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life. Paragraph 4: Avoidance of greater evil or injury Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Requisites: That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty of the lawful exercise of such right or office. That an order has been issued by a superior; That such order must be for some lawful purpose; and That the means used by the subordinate to carry out the said order is lawful.

Note 6) People vs. Delima (46 Phil. 738, 1922) The shooting by guards of escaping prisoners is always justified. The executor of death convicts at the Bilibid Prison cannot be liable for murder for the executions performed by him because he was merely acting in lawful exercise of his office.

Note 8) Par. 6 presupposes that what was obeyed by the accused was a lawful order; but if the accused complied with an unlawful order under a mistake of fact, he should not incur criminal liability. Note 9) Subordinate is not liable to carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of its illegality and he not negligent.

Note 7) Doctrine of Self-Help Article 429 of the Civil Code is applicable under this paragraph. The article states: The owner of lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

Paragraph 6: Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. Requisites: