CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances
JUSTIFYING CIRRCUMSTANCES
Imputability
⮚ an act may be ascribed to a person
o as its author
⮚ act was freely and consciously done so it is
put down to the doer as his own act
Responsibility
⮚ obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime
Guilt
⮚ element of responsibility
Justifying Circumstances
⮚ act of person is said to be lawful so there is
no crime, no criminal person and so no civil
and criminal liability
Exception:
No civil liability except where civil liability is
borne by the person benefited by the act
Examples of Justifying Circumstances
1. Any person who acts in self-defences,
provided that the ff. Circumstances concur:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it.
c. Lack of 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, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters or his relatives by affinity
in the same degree and consanguinity w/in 4th
civil degree provided that there is:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it.
c. In case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, the one making
the defense had no part therein
3. Anyone who acts in the defense of the
person or rights of a stranger provided that
I. SELF-DEFENSE
there is:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it.
c. Person defending be not induce by
revenge, resentment or other motive
4. A person who in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an act that causes damage to
another provided that the ff. Are present:
a. Evil sought to be avoided actually
exists
b. Injury feared is greater than what is
done
c. There’s no other practical and less
harmful ways to prevent it
5. A person who acts to fulfil a duty or lawful
exercise of a right or office
6. A person who acts in obedience of an order
issued by a superior for a lawful purpose
Burden of proof
⮚ Rests upon the accused
Rights included in self- defense:
1. Life
2. Property
3. Honor
Reasons why self-defense is lawful
1. For self-preservation of each person
2. Since it is impossible for the State to avoid
unjust aggression always, then it gives to a
person who is unlawfully attacked to protect
himself from the impending peril in his life.
3. Self-defense is an act of social justice done
to repel the attack of an aggression.
Requisites of Self-Defense
1
CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances
A. Unlawful aggression
⮚ It is necessary that we be attacked, or at
least threatened with an attack in an
immediate and imminent manner.
Ex. Brandishing a knife with which to stab us
Pointing a gun to discharge against us
2 kinds of aggression:
● Lawful- when aggression is in the
performance of a duty and the
exercise of a right in a more or less
violent manner
● Unlawful- present when the peril to
one’s life, limb or right is either actual
or imminent.
❖ There must be an actual physical assault
or at least a threat to inflict real injury
❖ Not present in oral threats or a merely
threatening stance or posture
Note: Paramour surprised in the act of
adultery
cannot invoke self-defense if he
killed
the husband who was assaulting him
Peril to one’s Life
1. Actual – danger must be present and
is actually in existence
❖ An actual physical assault places us in actual
danger
2. Imminent- danger is in the point of
happening
❖ It is not required that attack already
begins for it may be too late
❖ An actual physical assault places us in actual
danger
Peril to one’s Limb
Ex. Attack with fist blows may
imperil
one’s safety from physical injuries
Points to Remember
1. Actual force or use of actual weapon
constitutes an unlawful aggression
Excludes: insulting words w/out physical assault;
light push
But Includes: slap on face- because the face
Represents a person’s dignity, rights
and safety
2. Mere belief of an impending attack is not
sufficient; neither is an intimidating or
threatening attitude
3. Foot-kick greeting is not unlawful aggression
4. If there is no imminent and real danger to a
person’s life or limb, there is no unlawful
aggression
5. A strong retaliation for an injury or threat
may amount to unlawful aggression.
6. Retaliation is not self defense- because in
retaliation, aggression begun by the injured
party already ceased while in self defense,
aggression is still existing
7. To invoke self-defense, attack must be
simultaneous w/out appreciable interval of
time
8. Unlawful aggression must come from the
person who was attacked by the accused
9. A public officer exceeding his authority may
become an unlawful aggressor.
Ex. When sheriff assigned to execute an order to
seized a debtor’s property and he chooses to
get that which has sentimental value when
other properties of the same value could be
seized is an unlawful aggressor
10. Nature, location, and extent o f the wound
allegedly inflicted by the injured party may
disprove claim of self- defense.
11. Improbability of the deceased being the
aggressor belies the claim of self-defense
12. The fact that the accused declined to give a
statement when he surrendered to a
policeman is inconsistent with the plea of
self- defense
13. Physical fact on how the victim was killed
determine whether or not the accused acted
in self-defense
2
CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances
14. When the aggressor flees, unlawful
aggression no longer exists
15. Retreat to take a more advantageous
position is considered a continuation of
unlawful aggression.
16. There is no unlawful aggression when there
is agreement to fight. But where the
deceased challenges person B for a fight and
forthwith came to him to stab him with a
knife,the accused not having accepted the
challenge, acted in self-defense.
17. Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated
time and place is unlawful
18. One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot
claim self-defense
19. Rule is: Stand ground when in the right- the
law does not require a person to retreat if
the attacker is rapidly advancing upon him
with a weapon
20. The belief of the accused may be considered
in determining the existence of unlawful
aggression.
Ex. A saw B approaching with a pistol and uses
violent menaces against his life. A thus, with
a club in his hand strikes B over the head
before or at the instant the pistol is
discharged only to find out that the pistol
was loaded instead with a powder and it was
not true, here self-defense is justified.
21. There is self-defense even if the aggressor
used a toy pistol, provided that the accused
believed it was a real gun.
22. Mere threatening or intimidating attitude,
not preceded by an outward or material
aggression is not lawful aggression. pretext
23. Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful
aggression.
24. 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.
Examples of threats to inflict an injury:
● Aiming of revolver at another with
intent to shoot him
● Retreating 2 steps and placing a
hand w/ a motion indicative of one’s
purpose to commit an assault w/ a
weapon
25. Opening a knife and making a motion as if to
make an attack
26. When intent to attack is manifest, picking up
a weapon is sufficient unlawful aggression.
27. Aggression must be real, not imaginary
28. Aggression that is expected is still real,
provided that it is imminent.
Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
⮚ Requires the 1st and 2nd requisites w/c
are:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or
repeal it
1. Defense of right to chastity- invoked if there
is attempt to rape a woman
2. Defense of property- can be invoked only
when it is coupled with an attack on the
person entrusted with said property.
3. Defense of home- invoked if there is violent
entry to another’s house at night time by a
person who is armed with a bolo and forcing
his way into the house
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repeal it
⮚ means that:
1. the person making the defense must do a
necessary action-depends on the existence
of unlawful aggression so that if there is no
3
CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances
unlawful aggression or it has ceased, a
course of action need not be taken
2. Person must use a means of defense-
depends upon the nature and quality of the
weapon used by the aggressor, his physical
condition, size and other circumstances and
those of the person defending himself and
occasion of the assault
Note: the law protects not only the person
who repels an aggression (meaning actual-
real; tangible) but even the person who tries
to prevent an aggression (meaning
imminent-about to happen)
Circumstances to consider in determining
the existence of unlawful aggression (that
induced a person to take a course of action)
1. Place and occasion of the assault
considered
2. The darkness of the night and the
surprise w/c characterized the
assault considered.
Points to Remember
1. When the danger has ceased or has
disappeared, no course of action is
necessary
2. If a person has expressed his refusal to fight
any longer, action of defense must stopped
3. The person defending himself is not
expected to control his blow.
4. In repelling or preventing an unlawful
aggression, the one defending must aim at
his assailant, and not indiscriminately fire his
deadly weapon.
5. Reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be
liberally construed in favour of law-abiding
citizens.
6. While the law on self-defense allows a
private individual to prevent or repel an
aggression, the duty of a peace officer
requires him to overcome his opponent.
❖ The above preceding requisites are common in
the 3 legitimate defenses
3 Legitimate Defenses
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of a relative
3. Defense of a stranger
B. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
- present in the ff. circumstances:
1. When the person defending himself gave no
provocation at all to the aggressor.
2. When even there was provocation, it was not
sufficient-Note here that the exercise of a
right cannot give rise to sufficient provocation
3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient,
it was not given by the person himself
4. When even if the provocation was given by
the person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression.
❖ Note: To determine the sufficiency of
provocation, one has to see if the provocation is
sufficient to the act of aggression and is
adequate to stir the aggressor to kits
commission.
Example:
1. When one challenges another to come out
of a house for a fist fight.
2. When one imputes(accuses) another with
vulgar words provoking the other to
manifests and act of aggression.
❖ If the accused appears to be the aggressor, it
cannot be said that he was defending himself
from the effect of another’s agression
II. DEFENSE of RELATIVES
Relatives that can be defended:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
4
CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances
3. Descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters (or)
5. relatives by affinity in the same degree-
parents-in-law-, son or daughter-in-law and
brother or sister-in-law
❖ Death of spouse terminates the
relationship by affinity, unless the
marriage has resulted in an issue who is
still living.
6. Relatives by consanguinity w/in 4th civil
degree
Basis of justification
1. Humanitarian sentiment
2. Impulse of blood- impels men to rush, on the
occasion of great perils, to the rescue of
those close to them by ties of blood
Requisites
1. Unlawful aggression- there is an attack that
imperils one’s life and limbs
Note:
● if the accused appears to be the
aggressor, he cannot invoke self-
defense
● when 2 persons are getting ready to
strike each other, there can be no
unlawful aggression and a relative
who buts in and administers a
deadly blow cannot invoke self
defense aand is guilty of homicide
● Unlawful aggression may depend
upon the honest belief of the one
making the defense and may not
necessarily exist as a matter of fact
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it.
3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making the
defense had no part in such provocation
⮚ Even if the relative defended gave the
provocation, it is immaterial if the
accused did not take part in the
provocation
⮚ Even if the person defending his relative
was also induced by revenge or hatred,
for as long as the 3 requisites of defense
of relatives are present, it will still be a
legitimate defense
III. DEFENSE of STRANGER
Basis of justification
● Persons who defend others are on the
same plane as those who defend
themselves.
● Any person would not see idly his
companion being killed by another
w/out attempting to save his life
Requisites
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it.
3. Person defending be not induce by revenge,
resentment or other motive
⮚ defense of a stranger must be
actuated by a disinterested or
generous motive
⮚ lacking if the person was prompted
by his grudge with the assailant
Who are deemed strangers?
⮚ Any person not mentioned in the
enumeration of relatives
Note: Furnishing a weapon to one in
serious danger of being throttled is
defense of stranger
IV. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR
INJURY
Damage to another
⮚ covers injury to persons and damage to
another property
Requisites
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exist
⮚ Evil must exist, not merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future
5
 CRIMINAL LAW-Justifying Circumstances

2. That the injury feared be greater than that VI. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED
done to avoid it
⮚ Ex. Saving your life in a car accident over FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
the life of a passer-by Requisites
3. There’s no other practical and less harmful 1. Than an order has been issued by a superior
ways to prevent it 2. That such order must be for some lawful
Note: The greater evil should not be brought purpose
about by the negligence or imprudence of the
3. That the means used by the subordinate to
actor
⮚ Ex. Person must drive with utmost care carry out said order is lawful
and not through reckless imprudence Ex. Executioner put a person to death prior to the
Damage to property: can be done to save an entity date of his execution
which is of higher value
Points to Remember
● When the order is not for a lawful
V. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL
purpose, the subordinate who obeyed
EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFIICE it is criminally liable.
Requisites ● The subordinate is not liable for
1. Accused acted in performance of a duty or in carrying out an illegal order of his
lawful exercise of a right or office superior, if he is not aware of the
2. The injury caused or the offense committed illegality of the order and he is not
be the necessary consequence of the due negligent
performance of a duty or in lawful exercise ⮚ meaning he acted in good
of a right or office faith, not aware of the
Note: illegality of the act and he was
● Shooting an offender who refused to not negligent
surrender is justified
● But shooting a thief who refused to bee
arrested is not justified
Lawful exercise of right or office
⮚ Owner of a thing has the right to exclude
others from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof
⮚ So he may use force if necessary to repel
or prevent an unlawful invasion or
usurpation of his property
⮚ Ex. Person assigned to execute lethal
injection cannot be held liable for murder
because he performs the act according to
lawful exercise of office
Note:
● The actual invasion of property may
consists of a mere disturbance of
possession or of real dispossession