Self-defense

Article 11 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) states that in order for self-
defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the
following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.

1. Unlawful aggression

There must have been an outward and material attack upon the person defending himself
or a wrongful act showing the aggressor's wrongful intent, not merely a threatening attitude.

Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent

danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude; there has to exist a real
danger to the life or personal safety of the person claiming self-defense.

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b)
imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with
physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the
aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending
or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be
merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another
with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful
aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand
to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming
to throw a pot.

The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the
aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending
himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must
establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a
physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least,
imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in
defense of oneself.

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

 It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense. What the law requires is rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors the emergency, the
imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason,
that moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the
harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.

The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person did not
use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self-preservation, using the
nearest or only means available to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionately
advantageous as compared with the means of violence employed by the aggressor.

Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used,
physical condition, character, size and other circumstances.

 Means were used to prevent or repel

 Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
 Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally
proportionate to the force of the aggressor.

3. Lack of Sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir
one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient
provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable
and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.

The one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust
conduct or by inciting or provoking the aggressor. Or, at least, that any provocation executed by
the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim’s
aggression.

 When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
 When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not
sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of
provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to
defend himself.
 When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself.
  When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not
proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.
 Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one
to its commission

Defense of Strangers

Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code on the other hand, the requisites of defense of
strangers are, namely: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the
means to prevent or repel it; and (c) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive.

 A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger. (Beyond

4th Civil degree of Consanguinity)
 Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the aggressor who comes to
the defense of a stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so long as he is not
induced by a motive that is evil.

In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a

condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-
defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel.

Use of deadly force

Security personnel are authorized to use deadly force to protect the officer or others from
what is objectively and reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily
harm.

In relation to self-defense, this term means immediate danger, such as must be instantly
met such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of
the law. Or, as otherwise defined, such an appearance of threatened and Impending injury as
would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense.

Definition of an Arrest
As the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.
HOW MADE
An arrest is made by an ACTUAL RESTRAINT of a person to be arrested, or by his
SUBMISSION to the custody of the person making the arrest.
Citizen’s Arrest (Rule 113, Section 5)
A private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
 When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense; (in flagrante delicto or caught in the act)

 When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; (hot pursuit doctrine) and

o Immediacy
o Probable Cause
o Personal Knowledge

Probable Cause
The Court defined probable cause defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
Since these cases involve warrantless arrests, it is only befitting that the arrest be made
based on probable cause, and not by mere suspicion.
Personal knowledge
Personal knowledge of a crime just committed under the terms of the above-cited
provision, does not require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being committed; it is
enough that evidence of the recent commission of the crime is patent (as in this case) and the
police officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the crime.
Personal Knowledge vs. Actual Knowledge
Actual knowledge presupposes that the arresting person PERSONALLY WITNESSED
the person to be arrested committed, committing, or is about to commit the crime.

 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The law authorizes a police officer or even an ordinary citizen to arrest criminal offenders
only if the latter are committing or have just committed a crime.
In cases falling under the first 2 paragraph above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

SEC. 2463 of the Revised Administrative Code

 Police and other officers- The mayor, the chief and assistant chief of police, the chief of
the secret service, and all officers and members of the city police and detective force shall be
peace officers.

Difference of Citizen’s arrest and Arrest by a Peace Officer

RULE 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Applicable only to Peace Officers
Section 11. Right of officer to break into building or enclosure. — An officer, in order
to make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as provided in section 5, may
break into any building or enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed
to be, if he is refused admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose.
Section 12. Right to break out from building or enclosure. — Whenever an officer has
entered the building or enclosure in accordance with the preceding section, he may break out
therefrom when necessary to liberate himself.

Citizens effecting an arrest cannot break into a building or enclosure without incurring
any liability whether criminal or civil.