CHAPTER II

ARTICLE 11
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY

Circumstances affecting Criminal Liability

1. Justifying Circumstances
2. Exempting Circumstances and other absolutory causes
3. Mitigating Circumstances
4. Aggravating Circumstances
5. Alternative Circumstances

Imputability defined
The quality by which an act maybe ascribed (attributed) 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 defined
The obligation of suffering the consequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking
the penal and civil consequences of the crime.

Guilt defined
An element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.

Imputability vs Responsibility
Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person, responsibility implies
that the person must take the consequences of such a deed.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in

accordance with law, so that such person is deemed no to have transgressed the law and is
free from both civil and criminal liability.

Note: There is civil liability in paragraph 4 of Article 11, borne by the persons benefited by the
act.

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. Note: Unlawful aggression is INDISPENSABLE.

The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non (meaning: absolutely necessary).
For the right of self-defense to exist, it is necessary that we be assaulted or that we be attacked or at
least that we be threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner. If there is no
unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense will have no
basis.

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. 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 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.

Requisites of Defense of Relatives:

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a 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.

Requisites of Defense of Stranger:

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment and other evil
motives.

This code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a disinterested or

generous motive, when it puts down revenge, resentment, or other evil motive as
illegitimate.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another (covers damage to person and damage to property), provided that
the following requisites are present; (The Emergency Rule)

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Paragraph 4 of Article 11 is not
applicable if the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future.

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; here, the
greater evil to be a avoided should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.
Also, the evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor.

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Only in this paragraph where there is civil liability which is borne by the persons
benefited. This is in connection to Article 101 for damages.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office.

Requisites:
 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

The fulfillment of duty pertained here must be a legitimate one, otherwise Paragraph 5
of Article 11 cannot be invoked.

RA 386, Article 429: Doctrine of Self-Help

RA 386, Article 429

“The owner or 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. (n)”

Reference Case: People vs Depante, C.A., 58 O.G. 926

Tolentino's Comment (Vl II, p54, citing 3-1 Ennecerrus, Kipp & Wolff 92-93): “If the
property is immovable, there should be no delay in the use of force to recover it; a delay, even
if excusable, such as when is due to the ignorance of the dispossession, will bar the right to the
use of force.

Once the usurper's possession has become firm by the lapse of time, the lawful
possessor must resort to the competent authority to recover his property."

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

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose;
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful.

When order is not for a lawful purpose:

1. When the subordinate has full knowledge that the order was unlawful.
2. When the obedience to an order is not for a lawful purpose, meaning, the act is illegal.

The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware
of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent, here, the subordinate has no criminal
intent.

Burden of Proof:
It is incumbent (a duty or responsibility) upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal
liability, to prove by clear and convincing evidence the justifying circumstances claimed by
him to the satisfaction of the court. He must rely on the strength of his evidence.

Proving Self-Defense:
Self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
evidence that excludes any vestige (meaning: trace) of criminal aggression on the part of the
person invoking it and it cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated
by any separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful. This means, that the
accused must be able to establish self-defense by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, conviction
would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. (Remember that in invoking self-defense, the
accused admits to the acts and facts but not to the crime. So, the evidence established by the accused
must be corroborated by competent evidence.)

Rights included in Self-defense: person or body of the one assaulted and his rights.

Note: Lawful aggression is grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a present
unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, and therefore, it is inconceivable for the
State to require that the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance. (This is the
reason why Penal Law makes self-defense lawful)

Requisites of Self-defense:

First. Unlawful aggression.

There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an
unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. Note that the aggression meant here must be
simultaneous. Meaning, there must be no appreciable interval of time between the unlawful aggression
and the act of defending oneself. Example: In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-
defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with
the attack by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable
interval of time. Meaning, the accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation or cool
thinking because it was imperative for him to act on the spot.

Aggression may be lawful (example: fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right) or

unlawful.

Example of a lawful aggression by way of exercising one’s right: Remember Article 249 of
the New Civil Code (NCC): “the owner or 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.” This means, that if in protecting his property, the owner uses force to prevent its
being taken by another, he is NOT an unlawful aggressor, for he is merely exercising a right—
that is defending or protecting his property.

On the other hand, unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened

assault of an immediate or imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to
one’s life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or
actual use of weapon. In case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively strong,
showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury.

Note: Mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression,
presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger. It refers to an attack that has
actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent, it cannot consist in oral
threats or merely threatening stance or posture. Thus, insulting words addressed to the accused, no
matter how objectionable they may have been, without physical assault, could not constitute unlawful
aggression. In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed, 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 light push on the head with a hand does not constitute unlawful aggression. But a
slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. (Reason: face represents a person and his dignity,
slapping it is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard of an
individual’s personality.)

Foot-kick greeting between friends may be a practical joke, and may even hurt; but it is
not a serious or real attack on a person’s safety. It may be a mere slight physical provocation
but NOT unlawful aggression.

When there is no peril (meaning: danger) to one’s life, limb or right, there is NO unlawful
aggression. The danger must be present, that is, actually in existence. Danger must also be
imminent. Meaning, it must be on the point of happening. It is NOT required that the attack
already begins, for it may be too late.

A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount to an unlawful aggression. In

this case, there is no self-defense. There is no self-defense in retaliation because the
aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused
attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making a defense.

Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the unlawful

aggression and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking self-
defense to attack his adversary ceases. Self-defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of
an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.

The unlawful aggression must come from the person (the aggressor) who was attacked
by the accused (the one defensing himself). Therefore, an aggression that is not coming from the
deceased (herein supposed aggressor) but another person cannot be considered an element of
self-defense. Unlawful aggression must come directly, indirectly, from the person who was
subsequently attacked by the accused.

A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor. Example: A
provincial sheriff, in carrying out a writ of execution, took the debtor’s personal property with
sentimental value, although the other personal property sufficient to satisfy the claim of the
plaintiff was already made available to said sheriff. The act of taking the personal property
with sentimental value constitute an unlawful aggression because the sheriff exceeded his
authority by taking the personal property of the debtor even if the claim was already satisfied
by the other personal property.

Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by
the injured party may belie claim of self-defense. Example: The accused claiming self-defense
exhibited only a small scar. Another one, the accused claiming self-defense for killing the victim who
sustained 21 wounds.

Improbability of the deceased being the aggressor belies the claim for self-defense.
Example: It is hard to believe that the deceased who is an old man of 55 years, sick with ulcer, would still
press his attack and continue hacking the accused after having been seriously injured and had lost his
right hand.

An accused who declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a policeman is

inconsistent with the plea of self-defense.
 Physical facts may determine whether the accused acted in self-defense. Example: where
the accused claimed self-defense by alleging that he stabbed the victim twice when the latter lunged at
the accused to grab the latter’s bolo, it was observed that if these were true, the victim would have been
hit in front. The evidence showed, however, that the wounds were inflicted from behind.

When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exist, because the aggressor runs
away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even to wound the former
aggressor (People vs Alconga). In the case of People vs Alconga, the Supreme Court held that in the
second stage of the fight, the accused no longer acted in self-defense because the deceased, after receiving
several wounds, ran away. From the moment the deceased ran away, there was no longer any danger to
the life of the accused. Alconga was no longer acting in self-defense, because the aggression begun by the
deceased ceased from the moment he took to his heels,

Retreat to take more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack is still
considered unlawful aggression. The act of retreating is being considered as a continuing act of
unlawful aggression.

No unlawful aggression in concerted fights. Here, the aggression was reciprocal and
legitimate as between two contending parties. It must be noted however, that the challenge to
a fight must be accepted. If the accused had not accepted challenge, the act of stabbing the
deceased with a knife, is an act in self-defense. Reason: It is immaterial who attacks or who receives
the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself and in no wise is it an
unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense. However, it must be
noted further that where there was a mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of
the stipulated time and place would be unlawful.

One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense because he voluntarily
exposed himself to the consequences of a fight to his opponents.

The defense of rights also requires the first and second requisite: 1. Unlawful
aggression and 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Example:
Defense of Chastity; Defense of Property (provided that it is coupled with an attack to the person
entrusted with said property); Defense of Home

Self-defense cannot be invoked when the means employed to prevent or repel an

unlawful aggression is evidently excessive or unreasonable (People vs Jaurigue).

The belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression, hence, there is self-defense if the aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the accused
believed it was a real gun. Furthermore, aggression must be real and not imaginary. An
aggression that is expected is still real, provided that it is imminent.

How to determine unlawful aggressor?

In the absence of direct evidence to determine who provoked the conflict, it has been
held that it shall be presumed that, in the nature of the order of things, the person who was
deeply offended by the insult was the one who believed he had a right to demand explanation
of the perpetrator of that insult, and the one who also struck the first blow when he was not
satisfied with the explanation offered.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it.
 The second requisite of self-defense presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression,
which is either imminent or actual. Here is (1.) there is a necessity of the course of action taken
by the person making the defense, and (2.) there is a necessity of the means used. Both must be
reasonable.

Whether the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon the nature and quality
of the weapon used by the aggressor, physical condition, character, size and other
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault ( These are what constitute Rational Equivalence). Perfect equality between the weapon
used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required, because the
person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and which
weapon to use (test of the reasonableness of the weapon used).

In reasonable means, what the law requires is the rational equivalence, in the
consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to
which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than 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.

In the nature and quality of weapons used to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression,
the following must be considered: 1. There was no other available means; or 2. If there was
other means, the one making a defense could not coolly choose the less deadly weapon to
repel the aggression.

Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be

liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

himself.

Here, the one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his
unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking the assailant.
The term lack of provocation refers exclusively to the person defending himself.

Cases in which the third requisite of self-defense is considered present:

1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending
himself; or
2. Even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
3. Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself; or
4. Even if the provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.

Determining the sufficiency of the Provocation:

Remember that for the provocation to be sufficient it must be proportionate to the act
of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission.

Example where is there is sufficient provocation:

1. When one challenges the deceased to a fight.
2. Defense of chastity
Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense
Section 26 of R.A. No 9262 “Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004” provides “Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
women syndrome do not incur criminal liability and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from
battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists.

A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or

psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern of his rights.

The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence”

namely: 1. The tension-building phase (where minor battering occurs like verbal or slight physical
abuse); 2. The acute battering incident (characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes
death); 3. The tranquil, loving phase (battering incident ends).

Effect of battering incidents

Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced by the abused woman, her state
of mind metamorphoses. Here, in order to determine the state of mind of the woman, expert
evidence on psychological effect of battering on wives and common law partners are both
relevant and necessary.

Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common myths and misconceptions
about battered women. The psychologist explains that the cyclical nature of the violence
inflicted upon the battered woman immobilizes the latter’s “ability to act decisively in her
own interests, making her feel trapped in the relationship with no means of escape.”

According to experts, overwhelming brutality, trauma could result in post-traumatic

stress disorder, a form of anxiety, neurosis or neurologic anxietism.

SAMPLE QUESTIONS UNDER JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Note: These are just some questions and answers. You can practice on this and try to expound
the suggested answers and make it better. Also try to re-evaluate the answer and see if you can
come up with another or better answer.

1. Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in

criminal law.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In Justifying Circumstances: The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; The act is done
within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime; Since the act is not a crime, there is no
criminal liability; There being no crime, there is no criminal nor civil liability. Whereas, in an
Exempting Circumstances: The circumstance affects the actor, not the act; The act is felonious
and hence it is a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness; Although there is a crime,
there is no criminal liability because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
There being a wrong done but no criminal.
 2. Justifying; Defense of Stranger

A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about
to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier
challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke
the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved
in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A
was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified
under par 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

3. Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites

Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5
o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation,
came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right
arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought
the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-
Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of
Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the
air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the
right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass
through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another
shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital,
but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was subsequently charged with
homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted
in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a
duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis,
et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.

After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat,
Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought
about the cause of death of the victim.

4. Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites

One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a
man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his
business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you enjoyed it
as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito,
her husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una
denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of
where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.

5. Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements

Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their
nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have
sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned
to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang
grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang
claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her
honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art.
11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be
continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.

But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern. Hence, Osang's act of stabbing
Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an
immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.

6. Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites

A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was
guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived at
the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed. When prosecuted for
homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property and in
the performance of his duty as a security guard. If you were the judge, would you convict him
of homicide? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in performance of a duty cannot fully be justified.
Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to commit a crime
inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered
unlawful aggression on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is
justified to defend his property rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art. 11, must
be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second element (reasonable necessity
of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to
incomplete self-defense.

7. Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites

The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent
robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to
investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared
to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously
injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a
brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for
serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or
acquitted? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his
act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified.
Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless
the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the
accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the
time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside
his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and limb or those of
his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to
accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An
honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal
liability.

8. Justifying Circumstances: Euthanasia

A. In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable for deliberately turning off the
life suppor system consequently costing the life of the patient? State Reasons.

B. How about in an instance when in saving the life of the mother, the doctor sacrificed the life
of the unborn child. Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer:

A. The attending physician is criminally liable. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in

the Philippine jurisdiction.

B. There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because his acts are justified under
Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: The following do not incur
criminal liability: 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.

9. Justifying Circumstances: Self-Defense

As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a drinking spress at Heartthrob disco, Special
Police Office 3 (SPO3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio
whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo
and Warlito ganged up on Yabang, Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang.

A. What are the criminal liabilities for Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang? Was
there conspiracy and treachery? Explain.

B. In turn, is Yabang criminally liable to the death of Sergio?

Suggested Answers:

A. The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 11,
RPC, that is, self-defense of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that Yabang might not
be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three being friends and companions of the Victim.
Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives and limbs from the unlawful aggression of
Yabang.Alternatively they have the justified right to defend a stranger (Sergio) whose life at
that moment might still be saved by ganging up on Yabang to prevent the Sergio from any
further attack by the latter. In either case, reasonable necessity of the means employed and
lack of sufficient provocation are present.

B. Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the attack was frontal. Sergio, being
a suspected killer is no justification to be killed by Yabang (in reference to People vs Oanis).
10. Justifying Circumstances: Self-Defense

B repeatedly stabbed A with a kitchen knife. A managed ti escape with minor injuries, and to
run away from B who continued to pursue him. A, upon reaching the safety of his home, took a
sscythe with which to defend himself against B. Thus armed, A went out of his house and dared
B to come forward and fight. In the ensuing struggle, A killed B. Charged with Homicide, A
claimed self-defense. Is A entitled to the justifying circumstance? Decide and give your
reasons.

Suggested Answer:

A is not entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There is no unlawful aggression

on the part of the victim B. There are two stages in the fight. The first stage was when B
stabbed A repeatedly with a kitchen knife, who managed however to escape and ran away,
pursued by B. When A reached the safety of house, he was already safe from the unlawful
aggression of B and so such deemed to have ceased. When A took a scythe inside his house and
while thus armed he went out of his house and dared B to come forward and fight, A became
the challenger. From the facts, a struggle ensued, which implied that the challenge of A was
accepted by B, which is an agreement to fight and hence there can be no unlawful aggression.