ARTICLE 11: Justifying Circumstances The following do not incur criminal liability: 1.

Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: a. Unlawful Aggression; b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; c. 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 included 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: a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; b. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; c. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. 5. Any person who acts in the fulfilment 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. Summary: In accordance with the law. The actor is not considered to have violated the law. No criminal or civil liability. No crime committed. Colinares vs Pp, GR No 182748, December 13, 2011 When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him. The accused must establish the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence. When successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused.

Justifying circumstances: Self-defense Defense of relatives Defense of strangers Avoidance of a greater evil or injury Fulfilment of duty/lawful exercise of right or office Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose Self-defense In defense of his person or rights. Basis: - State cannot protect all of its citizen all of the time. - It is a natural reaction to resist any invasion of a person or his rights. Defense of person or rights Person includes danger to ones: - Life - Limb Rights includes: - Right to property Self-defense, requisites Unlawful aggression (indispensable); Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and indispensable requisite. No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether complete or incomplete. The aggression must be unlawful and actual. Pp vs Concillado, GR No 181204, November 28, 2011 The most important among all the elements is xxx unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. There can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression from the person injured or killed by the accused; for otherwise, there is nothing to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.

Colinares vs Pp, GR No 182748, December 13, 2011 If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the accused, the latter has nothing to prevent or repel and the other two requisites of self-defense would have no basis for being appreciated. Aggression must be unlawful It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful aggression taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of the deceased in so doing was to succeed in capturing and arresting the appellant (Pp vs Gayrama, GR No 39270, 39271, October 30, 1934) Pp vs Merced, GR No 14170, November 23, 1918 that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender of his honor, and if he had killed his wife and the other defendant, he would have exercised a lawful right Aggression must be actual An actual assault, or Threat of an assault of an: Immediate and imminent; Offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury

The nature, character, location, and extent of wound/injuries Wounds/injuries on the victim would usually indicate whether self-defense is credible or not. Wounds/injuries on the accused are not as determinative as the injuries on the victim. Cano vs Pp, GR No 155258, Oct 7, 2003 the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on the accused does not, per se, negate selfdefense, the actual wounding of the person defending himself is not necessary. Age and condition of alleged aggressor Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian. (Diaz) The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured lost his right hand. (Ardiza) Behavior immediately after the incident Failure to interpose self-defense after: surrendering- Manansala confession- De la Cruz Physical findings Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were facing each other. The factual findings establish that the wounds were in the back of the victim. (Dorico) The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez) Unlawful aggression must exist at the time of the act constituting self-defense a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he flees. it is because this Court considered that the requisites of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and indispensable among these being the unlawful aggression of the opponent. (Pp vs Alconga, April 30, 1947, GR No L-162) Pp vs Acosta, GR No 140386, Nov 29, 2001 Granting that the victim gave the initial unlawful aggression, it had certainly ceased from the moment he fell to the ground. At that point, accused Renny Boy became the aggressor. When the unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making the defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor.

Actual aggression Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack would not be sufficient. (Baxinela vs Pp, GR No 149652, Mar 24, 2006) Actual or imminent Actual assault with a cane (US vs Laurel) Imminent rocking a boat coupled with threats of capsizing the same (Pp vs Cabungcal) Pp vs Macaso, GR No L-30489, June 30, 1975 To constitute unlawful aggression, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se, and to allow a claim of exemption from liability on the ground that it was committed in self-defense.

Defense of rights Right to chastity: Jaurigue incomplete, no reasonable necessity Dela Cruz complete, no other means to defend herself Right to property: Actual attack on the person in lawful possession of the property. (Art 249 NCC) Home: Violent entry at nighttime ready and looking for trouble shows aggression instead of fear Circumstances should still show unlawful aggression. Pp vs Guy-sayco, GR No 4912, March 25, 1909

Nature and extent of aggression Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana) Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke place was dark and uninhabited, Lie down and give me your money or else you die (Sup. Ct. Spain) Pp vs Lara, GR No 24014, October 16, 1925 It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of selfpreservation; and when it is apparent, as in the case, that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences. Pp vs Macasaet, GR No 11718, October 31, 1916

In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act poisitively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is punishable per se Unlawful aggression (Dec. Sup. Ct Spain) Aiming a revolver at someone with the intention of shooting him Retreating two steps and placing his hand in his pocket indicating his purpose to commit an assault with a weapon Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack

Having concluded, however, that under all the circumstances the accused was justified in making use of his knife to repel the unprovoked assault as best as he could, it would be impossible to say that a second or third blow was unnecessary under all the circumstances of the case, it appearing that the accused instantly and without hesitation inflicted all the wounds at or about the same time. Reasonable necessity in the means used Rational necessity to employ the means used. Perfect equality is not required. Rational equivalence is what is required. US vs Apego, GR No 7929, November 8, 1912 since there was no real need of wounding with the said weapon him who had merely caught her arm. there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow therewith in the center of the body, where the principal vital organs are seated, of the man who had not performed any act which might be considered as an actual attempt against her honor. Pp vs Montalbo, GR No 34750, December 31, 1931 Though the deceased struck him with his fists, the appellant was not justified in mortally wounding his assailant with the penknife. This was not a reasonably necessary means of repelling the attack. Rational equivalence Nature and quality of the weapon used; Physical condition, character, and size; Other circumstances of both aggressor and person defending himself

Pp vs Francisco de la Cruz, GR No 41487, May 2, 1935 In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above all, that the aggression be real, or at least, imminent, and not merely imaginary. Reasonable necessity The second requisite in self-defense is reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Elements There must be reasonable necessity in both: Course of action taken by the person defending; Means used. Determined by: Existence of unlawful aggression and The nature and extent of the aggression

 Place and occasion of assault Rationale: Because this justifying circumstance is borne by necessity and is resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, the person defending himself is not expected to think coolly and clearly. The person defending is, therefore, not expected to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the injury that would result after he delivers his blow. Weapons Using more dangerous weapons would not preclude reasonable necessity, if it cannot be shown that: - Other means were available or - If there were other means, he could coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the assault Pp vs Onas, GR No L-17771, November 29, 1962 In other words, if the accused had only drawn his bayonet in defense, that would have been enough to discourage and prevent the deceased from further continuing with his attack or sufficient to ward off the blows given by the deceased when he attacked the accused. In stabbing the deceased with his bayonet, the defendant-appellant went beyond what was necessary to defend himself against the unlawful aggression mad by the deceased. US vs Mendoza, GR No 1098, April 6, 1903 The character of this weapon is such that in our opinion the defendant could not then have reasonably believed that it was necessary to kill his assailant in order to repeal the attack. It is an instrument shaped like a small chisel (escoplo) with no point or cutting edge on either side, and is used for the purpose of taking out the contents of betel nuts or the like. US vs Mack, GR No L-3515, October 3, 1907 court not reasonably be expected to take the chance that mere ordinary force would be used in striking, or that the blow would be given upon some protected part of his body, or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen enough to give him his death blow. in the shades of night the defendant, with his adversary advancing upon him and within a few feet of striking distance. The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and thus make sure of his own life. Not every wound which proves fatal is sufficient to stop an enemys attack, and the accused and his assailant were so close at hand that until the assailant

fell to the ground it can be said that the accused was out of danger. Even a wounded man with a drawn bolo in his hand might prove to be no mean antagonist at close quarters. Physical condition, character and size of the opposing parties One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the extent of the injury which a reckless and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him (Pp vs Ignacio, GR No 40140, November 27, 1933) When attacked by an unarmed assailant/s there may be other circumstances, such as the very violence of the attack or a great disparity in the age or physical ability of the parties, which give deceased (accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly weapon in self-defense. (Ignacio) Private individual vs law enforcement officer Private individual prevent or repel aggression Law enforcement officer overcome his opponent Lack of sufficient provocation The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or prevented. There are 4 situations where the 3rd requisite is considered present: No provocation Provocation was not sufficient Was not given by the person defending himself Was not immediate or proximate

Alconga There is sufficient provocation when it is proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. Need not be an act of violence Challenging one to come out of the house to fight (US vs McCray. 2 Phil 545, Pp vs Valencia, L-58426, Oct 31, 1984) Hurling inults or imputing the utterance of vulgar language. (Pp vs Sotelo, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question of pride does not justify wounding or killing an opponent. (Why are you calling me? Pp vs Dolfo)

Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased (Getida, CA)

Defense of relatives Spouse Ascendant Descendant Legitimate, natural, or adopted bro or sis Relatives by affinity in the same degrees Parents-in-law Son or daughter-in-law Bro or sis-in-law Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree The same in self-defense: Unlawful aggression and Reasonable necessity In case there is sufficient provocation, the person defending had no part therein US vs Esmedia, GR No L-5749, October 21, 1910 inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and had good grounds upon which to found their belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father. Pp vs Toring, GR No 56358, October 26, 1990 It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather, he was motivated by revenge Caabay

Burden of proving justifying circumstances In justifying circumstances, the actor admits to the commission of the act but interposes a justifying circumstance. Hence, therefore, has the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance. Admits to the offense charged By pleading self-defense, an accused admits the killing and thereby assumes the burden to establish his plea of self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, his conviction will follow from his admission of killing the victim. (Pp vs Nugas, GR No 172606, November 23, 2011) Pp vs Concillado, GR No 181204, November 28, 2011 When an accused admits the commission of the crime but claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. When the accused miserably fails to discharge his burden, he does not deserve an acquittal. His conviction must be sustained, as in the instant case. Pp vs Genosa, GR No 135981, Jan 15, 2004 First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probablenot necessarily immediate and actualgrave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Battered Woman Syndrome In March 27, 2004 RA 9262 took effect. 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.

Appellant Virgilio testified that he was not armed, while appellant Esteban was armed with a piece of wood. However, Paulino sustained ten incised wounds and one stab wound on the scapular area, ear, face and nose, parietal area, left temporal area, left frontal area, chin, right scapular area and posterior neck. Aliguer sustained seven incised wounds in the maxillary area, fracturing his teeth on the left side of the face, he also sustained wounds on the scrotum and on the left ear. Considering the nature, location and number of the wounds sustained by the victims, the appellants plea of selfdefense and defense of a relative will not hold. Balunueco vs CA, GR No 126968, Apr 9, 2003 (1) The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the accused belie his testimony; (2) The accused failed to present himself to the authoritites The natural impulse of any person who has killed someone in defense of his person or relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against him.

(3) Accused recollection of the events are erratic. Defense of strangers Unlawful aggression Reasonable necessity The person defending be not induced by revenge. Resentment or other evil motive. Cabuslay vs. Pp, GR No 129875, Sept. 30, 2005 It bears repeating that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia which disprove a plea for self-defense or defense of stranger because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill the victim and not just defend oneself. In the instant case, Paquitos wounds serve to tell us that petitioner was induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive and that he was set on killing the victim.