Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
11
Defense of Self, Relatives, &
Strangers
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.
The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime
by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Art.
11 that the person therein mentioned DO NOT
INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
Art. 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. Any one 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 revocation 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 Art. 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 not 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.
Par. 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Self-defense includes not only the defense
of the person or body of the one assaulted but also
that of his rights, that is, those rights the
enjoyment of which is protected by law.
REQUISITES:
a.
the
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree.
Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are
parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brothers
or sisters-in-law.
Death of the spouse terminates the relationship
by affinity; unless the marriage has resulted in
issue who is still living, in which case the
relationship of affinity continues.
Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers
and sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle
and niece or aunt and nephew are within the third
civil degree; and first cousins are within the fourth
civil degree.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon
the honest belief of the one making a defense.
Ex. The sons of A honestly believed that their
father was the victim of an unlawful aggression
when in fact it was their father who attacked B. If
they killed B under such circumstance, they are
justified.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
The gauge of reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel the aggression as
against ones self or in defense of a relative is
to be found in the situation as IT APPEARS TO
THE PERSON REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the
defender).
3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making a
defense had no part therein.
There is still legitimate defense of relative
even if the relative being defended has given
provocation, provided that the one defending
such relative has no part in the provocation.
Reason for the rule: 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 a relative.
Par. 3 DEFENSE OF STRANGER
REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
People v. Decena
Facts: According to the testimony of the 14-year
old daughter of the victim, her father was walking
home in an intoxicated state on Christmas day
when suddenly she saw George Decena rush
towards with a long bladed weapon. She tried to
warn him by shouting but all the father did was
raise his hands, which enabled the assailant to stab
him on the chest. Decena then fled from the scene,
leaving the victim on the ground. The daughter,
unable to carry her father, yelled for her mother to
come and stated that George Decena was the one
who stabbed her father.
Decenas defense, however, states that it was the
father, Jaime, who, when drunk in the basketball
game before returning home, held Decena by the
neck with one arm and poked a fork against it by
the other. The barangay tanod also surnamed
Decena then took the fork from Jaime and advised
George Decena to go home. Jaime allegedly
followed. The uncle of Decena testified that it was
Jaime who tried to attack Decena and that the
latter was able to parry the blow. During the
struggle that ensued, Decena was able to twist the
wrist of his combatant and thrust the knife towards
his person thereby effecting his death.
Issues: WON Decena acted in self-defense and
thus, exonerated from criminal liability.
Held/Ratio: No. The burden of evidence, instead of
being on the part of the prosecution, shifts towards
the defense because it alleges it acted in selfdefense. The basic requirement for self-defense, as
a justifying circumstance, is that there was unlawful
aggression against the person defending himself
so indispensable is this element that, without it,
there is no occasion to speak of the two other
requisites. The theory of the defense rests on the
premise that the unlawful aggression was
continuing from the basketball court to the scene of
the Jaimes demise. This wasnt the case because
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
People v. Narvaez
Issues:
(1) WON the aggression on the property of Narvaez
was lawful or unlawful.
(2) WON self-defense can be claimed by Narvaez in
shooting those who would
Held/Ratio:
(1) Yes. The assault on the property constituted
unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased
who had no right to destroy or cause damage to
Narvaezs house, nor to close his accessibility to
the highway while he was pleading with them to
stop and talk things over with him.
(2) No. Although aggression is established as the
first element in self-defense and there was no
provocation on the part of Narvaez (thereby
meeting the third element), the second element,
being reasonableness of resistance, was not met
People v. Boholst-Caballero
Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero allegedly killed
her husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting
knife. The couple was married in 1956 and had a
daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the
husband's gambling and drinking and there were
times when he maltreated and abused his wife.
After more than a year, Francisco abandoned his
family. In 1958, Cunigunda went caroling with her
friends and when she was on her way home she
met her husband who suddenly held her by the
collar and accused her of going out for prostitution.
Then he said he would kill her, held her by the hair,
slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her
towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt
on her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda,
having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt
line while holding unto his waist so she wouldn't fall
to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust
it into her husband's left side, near the belt line just
above the thigh. He died 2 days after the incident
due to the stab wound. Then she ran home and
threw the knife away. The next day, she
surrendered herself to the police along with the
torn dress that she wore the night before.
Issues: WON she acted in self-defense.
Held/Ratio: Burden if proof of self-defense rests on
the accused. In this case, the location and nature of
the stab wound confirms that the said victim, the
husband, was the aggressor. With her husband
kneeling over her and choking her, accused had no
other choice but to pull the knife tucked in his belt
line and thrust it into his side.
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where
the knife was drawn from is a strong indication of
the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on
the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for
her to use her right hand to lunge the knife into
husband's left side.
People v. Madrid
Facts: According to the prosecution, Camilo, chief
barangay tanod, was being ganged up by four
armed people, namely: Jesus Madrid (JM), William
Madrid (WM), Jill Madrid, and Hilarion Tinao, Jr.
Antonio Tasis approached the group but WM hacked
him but he was able to parry. JM tried to strike
Antonio but the latter was able to take hold of the
striking hand and twisted it towards the assailant.
Antonio was then able to flee.
According to the defense, it was JM who was
accosted by Antonio by stabbing him. JM struggled
with Antonio for the knife and eventually
succeeded in wresting it away from him. JM struck
Antonio and the latter scampered away. Wounded,
JM asks someone to notify his nephew, WM. WM
comes to the scene and sees that Antonio and
Camilo were chasing the wounded JM and were
about ten meters away. He races to JM, who in turn
gives the knife to his nephew, and faced Antonio
and Camilo. Antonio ran away but Camilo held his
ground and fought JM for possession of the knife.
As they struggled with each other WM repeatedly
stabbed Camilo and stopped only after Camilo gave
up.
Issues: WON WM acted in self-defense.
People v. Ricohermoso
People v. Delima
Facts: Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail where
he was serving sentence. Some days afterwards
the policeman, Felipe Delima, who was looking for
him found him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed
with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a
lance. Delima demanded the surrender of the
weapon but Napilon refused and answered with a
stroke of his lance. Delima dodged and fired his
revolver to impose his authority but the bullet did
not hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went
after him and fired again his revolver this time
hitting and killing him. Delima was tried and
convicted for homicide; he appealed.
Held: The SC ruled that Delima must be acquitted.
The killing was done in the performance of a duty.
The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender and had no right, after evading service of
his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience
with a weapon in his hand, which compelled the
policeman to resort to such extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstances.
People v. Lagata
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
People v. Beronilla
Facts: Arsenio Borjal was mayor of La Paz Abra at
the outbreak of war and continued to serve as
mayor during the Japanese occupation. Dec 19,
1944 accused-appellant Manuel Beronilla was
appointed Military Mayor of La Paz by Lt. Col
Arnold.
Simultaneously,
he
received
a
memorandum issued by Arnold authorizing them to
appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons
accused of treason, espionage or aiding the enemy.
He also received a list of all puppet government
officials of Abra, with a memorandum instructing all
Military Mayors to investigate said persons and
gather
against
them
complaints.
Beronilla,
pursuant to his instructions placed Borjal under
custody and asked residents of La Paz to file case
against him. He also appointed a 12-man jury
composed of Labuguen as chairman and others,
plus Alverne and Balmaceda were prosecutors;
Paculdo as clerk of the jury, and Inovermo as
counsel for the accused, later Atty. Barreras
voluntarily appeared as counsel for Borjal. The jury
found Borjal guilty on all counts and imposed death
penalty. Mayor Beronilla forwarded the records of
the case to Headquarters of Infantry for review.
Records were returned on April 18, 1945 with
approval of Arnold. On the same day, Beronilla
ordered the execution of Borjal. Immediately after
the execution, Beronilla reported the execution to
Arnold, the latter complementing Beronilla.
Two years later, Mayor Beronillo and others
involved in the Borjal case were indicted by CFI of
Abra for murder, for allegedly conspiring and
confederating in the execution of Borjal. Pres.
Roxas issued E.P. no. 8, granting amnesty to all
persons who committed acts penalized, under RPC
in furtherance of resistance to the enemy against
persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy. All
the accused (except Labuguen who filed and
granted amnesty by the AFP), filed their application
to Second Guerilla Amnesty Commission, which
denied their application on the ground that they
were inspired by purely personal motives, thus
remanding case to CFI for trial on merits. On July
10, 1950 Beronillo, Paculdo, Velasco and Adriatico
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Voting:
Six
dissented
(Padilla,
Davide,
Romero, Puno, Melo, Panganiban)