Justifying circumstances are those wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law and,

hence, he incurs no criminal and civil liability. The justifying circumstances by subject are as
follows:
1) Self-defense
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights. (Art. 11, Par. 1) The scope included
self-defense not only of life, but also of rights like those of chastity, property and honor. It has
also been applied to the crime of libel. Its elements are: 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) Defense of Relative 3) Defense of Stranger 4) State of Necessity 5) Fulfillment of duty 6)
Obedience to superior order

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA

JAURIGUE
C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946
Ponencia, De Joya

FACTS:
Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue, her father, were prosecuted for the crime of
murder for which Nicolas was acquitted while Avelina was found guilty of homicide. She
appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon on June 10, 1944 to completely
absolve her of all criminal responsibility for having acted in defense of her honor, to find
in her favour additional mitigating circumstances and omit aggravating circumstance.
At about 8:00 PM of September 20, 1942, Amado Capina, deceased victim, went to the
chapel of Seventh Day Adventists to attend religious services and sat at the front bench
facing the altar. Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father
for the same purpose and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Upon
seeing Avelina, Amado went and sat by Avelinas right side from his seat on the other side
of the chapel, and without saying a word, placed his hand on the upper part of her right
thigh.
Avelina Jaurigue, therafter, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife which she had in a
pocket of her dress with the intention of punishing Amados offending hand. Amado
seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed the knife on her left hand and stabbed
Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck inflicting upon him a wound about 4
inches deep, which is mortal.
Nicolas saw Capina bleeding and staggering towards the altar, and upon seeing his
daughter approached her and asked her the reason for her action to which Avelina replied,
Father, I could not endure anymore.
Amado Capina died a few minutes after. Barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada was there
and Avelina surrendered herself. Lozada advised the Jaurigues to go home immediately
for fear of retaliation of Capinas relatives.

EVENTS PRIOR:
One month before that fatal night, Amado Capina snatched Avelinas handkerchief
bearing her nickname while it was washed by her cousin, Josefa Tapay.
 7 days prior to incident (September 13, 1942), Amado approached her and professed his
love for her which was refused, and thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
touched her breasts. She then slapped him, gave him fist blows and kicked him. She
informed her matter about it and since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife
whenever she went out.
2 days after (September 15, 1942), Amado climbed up the house of Avelina and entered
the room where she was sleeping. She felt her forehead and she immediately screamed
for help which awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out from
where he had hidden and kissed the hand of Avelinas father, Nicolas.
Avelina received information in the morning and again at 5:00 PM on the day of the
incident (September 20, 1942) that Amado had been falsely boasting in the
neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her person. In the evening, Amado had been
courting the latter in vain.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the defendant should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility
because she is justified in having acted in the legitimate defense of her honor.
Whether or not the Court should find the additional mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender, presence of provocation and absence of intent in her favour
Whether or not committing said offense in a sacred place is an aggravating circumstance
in this case

HELD:
Conviction of defendant is sustained and cannot be declared completely exempt from
criminal liability. To be entitled to a complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an
attempt to rape. To provide for a justifying circumstance of self-defense, there must be 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. Attempt
to rape is an unlawful aggression. However, under the circumstances of the offense, there
was no possibility of the defendant to be raped as they were inside the chapel lighted with
electric lights and contained several people. Thrusting at the base of Capinos neck as her
means to repel aggression is not reasonable but is instead, excessive.
Mitigating circumstances are considered in her favour. Circumstances include her
voluntary and unconditional surrender to the barrio lieutenant, provocation from the
deceased which produced temporary loss of reason and self-control of the defendant and
lack of intent to kill the deceased evidenced by infliction of only one single wound.
Aggravating circumstance of having committed offense in a sacred place is not sustained
as there is no evidence that the defendant had intended to murder the deceased when she
entered the chapel that night. She killed under great provocation.
Penalty: For homicide, penalty is reclusion temporal. However, with 3 mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, it is reduced by two degrees, in this case,
prision correccional. Indeterminate Sentence Law provides the penalty ranging from
arresto mayor in its medium degree to prision correccional in its medium degree.
Avelina is sentenced to 2mos and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum to 2 years, 4
months, and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum; to indemnify heirs of Capina in
the sum of 2,000; with corresponding subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed 1/3 of
 principal penalty and to pay costs. She is given the benefit of of her preventive
imprisonment
SEPARATE OPINION: Hilado questions the validity or nullity of judicial proceedings in
the Japanese-sponsored courts.