Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ART 11: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES & prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL defense of himself.
LIABILITY Must be proved with certainty by sufficient,
-‐ Are those where where the act of a person is said to be in satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige
accordance with law, and is free from both criminal and of criminal aggression.
civil liability. Burden of proof rests upon the accused, it is his duty
-‐ There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of ART 11. to establish self defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY: entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any
- Imputability, implies that the act committed has been freely separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful.
and consciously done and may, therefore, be put down to the
doer as his very own. REQUISITES TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF SELF-
- Responsibility, the obligation of suffering the consequences DEFENSE
of crime. It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil 1. Unlawful aggression by the victim
consequences of the crime. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
⇒ Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a prevent or repel it
person, responsibility implies that the person must 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
take the consequence. person defending himself
⇒ Guilt, an element of responsibility, a man cannot be
1.1 UNLAWFUL AGREESION
made to answer for the consequences of a crime unless
- For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that we be
he is guilty.
assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least that we be
threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent
FOLLOWING DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL
manner. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to
LIABILITY:
prevent or repel. The second requisite of defense will have no
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights
basis.
• Unlawful aggression;
• Reasonable necessity of the means employed to 2 KINDS OF AGGRESSION
prevent or repel it; 1. Lawful
• Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the 2. Unlawful - Unlawful aggression is equivalent to
person defending himself assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his and imminent kind. Refers to an attack that has
spouse, ascendants, or of his relatives by affinity in the same actually broken out or materialized or at the very
degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral
degree threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a
stranger and that the person defending be not induced by FOR LAWFUL AGRRESION:
revenge, resentment or other evil motive. - The fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right in a more
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an or less violent manner is an aggression, but it is lawful.
act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present: FOR UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
• The evil sought to be avoided actually exist The circumstance that it was the accused, not the
• The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid deceased, who had a greater motive for committing the crime
it on the ground that the deceased had already sufficiently
• There be no other practical and less harmful means punished the accused
preventing it
- Paramour surprised in the act of adultery cannot invoke
• Anyone who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
self-defense if he killed the offended husband who was
• Who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior assaulting him.
for some lawful purpose - Peril to one’s life
• 2019 Act No. 3815, s. 1930 | Official Gazette of the 1. Actual – danger must be present
Republic of the Philippines 2. Imminent – danger is on the point of happening.
5. Any person who acts in the filament of a duty or in the lawful - Peril to one’s limb
exercise of a right or office. ⇒ The peril to one's limb may also be actual or only
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a imminent.
superior for some lawful purpose.
⇒ includes peril to the safety of one's person from
physical injuries.
Burden of proof – circumstances mentioned in ART 11 are
matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in ⇒ An attack with fist blows may imperil one's safety
order to avoid criminal liability. from physical injuries. Such an attack is unlawful
aggression.
Self-defense - Well-entrenched is the rule that where the - There must be actual physical force or actual use of
accused invokes self- defense, it is incumbent upon him to weapon
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13 2 | REYES
⇒ insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter • where the accused is where he has the right to be, the
how objectionable they may have been, without law does not require him to retreat when his assailant
physical assault, could not constitute unlawful is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
aggression.
⇒ A light push on the head with the hand does not - Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights
constitute unlawful aggression. But a slap on the face ⇒ Attempt to rape a woman – defense of right to
is an unlawful aggression. chastity.
⇒ Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. the act of 1. Embracing a woman, touching her private
slapping another constituted the use of force parts and her breast, and throwing her to the
qualifying an unlawful aggression. ground for the purpose of raping her.
• the face represents a person and his dignity, 2. Placing a hand by a man on the woman’s
slapping it is a serious personal attack. upper thigh.
⇒ “Foot-kick greeting” is not unlawful aggression. ⇒ Defense of property
- A strong retaliation for an injury or threat may amount can only be invoked as a justifying
to an unlawful aggression. circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one the entrusted
• Retaliation is not self-defense.
with said property
-The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the
deceased by defendant should succeed each other without ⇒ Defense of home
appreciable interval of time.
- The belief of the accused may be considered in
⇒ In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-
defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased determining the existence of unlawful aggression
by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack
- Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful aggression
made by the deceased, or at least both acts succeeded
each other without appreciable interval of time. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not
-The unlawful aggression must come from the person preceded by an outward and material aggression, is not
unlawful aggression
who was attacked by the accused.
-A public officer exceeding his authority may become an
unlawful aggressor. EXAMPLE OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL INJURY:
-Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of the ⇒ One aims a gun at another with intention of shooting
accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie him
claim of self- defense. ⇒ Act of a person retreating 2 steps and placing his hand
1. The accused claiming self-defense, exhibited a small in his pocket with a motion indication his purpose to
(1 ½ inches long) scar caused by an instrument on his commit assault with a weapon
head. ⇒ Act of opening a knife, making a motion as if to make
2. The location, number and seriousness of the stab an attack
wounds inflicted on the victims belie the claim of self-
defense. 1.2 REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS
3. The nature, character, location, extent of the wounds EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT.
suffered by the deceased belie any supposition that it - Necessity of the course of action
was the deceased to was the unlawful aggressor. • Place and occasion of the assault considered
4. Appellant's theory of self-defense is negatived by the • The darkness of the night and the surprise which
nature and location of the victim's wounds
characterized the assault considered
5. In view of the number of wounds of the deceased, - No necessity of the course of action taken
nineteen (19) in number, the plea of self-defense The theory of self-defense is based on the
cannot be seriously entertained.
necessity on the part of the person attacked to prevent or
6. The accuse was the only eyewitness to the crime. repel the unlawful aggression, and when the danger or
risk on his part has disappeared.
- The fact that the accused declined to give any statement - When the aggressor is disarmed
when he surrendered to a policeman is inconsistent with - Person defending is not expected to control his blow.
the plea of self defense. Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean
- When the aggressor flee, unlawful aggression no longer the killing of the unlawful aggressor. But the person defending
exists. himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his
- Retreat to take more advantageous position. blow. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be
• Unlawful aggression is considered still continuing. justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time
- No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight. when the elements of complete self- defense are still present.
- Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and - When the aggression is so sudden that there is no time left
place is unlawful to the one making a defense to determine what course of action
- One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self to take.
defense.
- “Stand ground when in fight” 3 KINDS OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE
1. Self-defense
2. defense of a relative
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER; ART 11-13 3 | REYES
3. defense of a stranger 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
⇒ The one defensing himself must not have given cause prevent or repel it
for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting Person defending be not be induced by revenge, resentment or
or provoking the assailant. other evil motive.
CASES WHICH 3RD REQUISITE OF SELF DEFESE ⇒ This Code requires that the defense of a stranger be
CONSIDERED PRESENT: actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, when
1. When no provocation at all was given to the it puts down "revenge, resentment, or other evil
aggressor motive" as illegitimate.
2. Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by - The person defending “be not induced”
the person defending himself Even if a person has a standing grudge against the
4. Even if provocation was given by the person assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger out of
generous motive to save the stranger from serious bodily harm
-Battered woman syndrome or possible death, the third requisite of defense of stranger still
Under R.A. No 9262 otherwise known as Anti- exists.
Violence Against Woman and their Children Act of 2004;
"Sec. 26. Battered Women Syndrome as a Defense. — 4.1 AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
Victim- survivors who are found by the courts to be ⇒ “Damage to another”, this term covers injury to
suffering from battered women syndrome do not persons and damage to property.
incur criminal and civil liability not with- standing ⇒ The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be
the absence of any of the elements for justifying avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal happen in the future, paragraph 4 of Art. 11 is not
Code. “ applicable.
⇒ In the determination of the state of mind of the ⇒ As a rule, there is no civil liability in justifying
woman who was suffering from battered woman circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of Art. 11
syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, where there is civil liability, but the civil liability is
the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrist/ borne by the persons benefited. The persons for
psychiatrists/psychologists." whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be
⇒ been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly subjected civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by may have received.
a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants
her to do without concern for her rights. Battered - The greater evil should not be brought about by the
women include wives or women in any form of negligence or imprudence of the actor.
intimate relationship with men. - When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot
invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a
2.1 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE greater evil or injury.
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED - The evil which brought about the greater evil must not
1. Spouse result from a violation of law by the actor.
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants 5.1 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters, OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. REQUSITES:
5. Relatives by consanguinity w/in 4th civil degree 1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
the lawful exercise of a right or office
⇒ The clause, "in case the provocation was given by 2. The injury caused or the offense committed be the
the person attacked," used in stating the third necessary consequence of the due performance of duty
requisite of defense of relatives, does not mean that or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
the relative defended should give provocation to the
aggressor. - Fulfillment of Duty
- Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
- The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is justified; but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested
immaterial is not justified.
Ex; if A had slapped the face of B who, as a The doctrine is restated in the Rules of Court thus:
consequence of the act of A, immediately commenced to "No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
retaliate by drawing a knife and trying to stab A, and C, arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any
father of A, killed B in defense if his son, C is completely greater restraint than is necessary for his detention." (Rule
justified. 113, Sec. 2, par. 2)
6.1 OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME -Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony
LAWFUL PURPOSE distinguished from insanity at the time of trial
REQUISITES: When a person is insane at the time of the commission
1. Order has been issued by a superior of felony, he is exempt of criminal liability. When is was sane
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose at the time of the commission, BUT becomes insane at the time of
3. The means by the subordinate to carry out said order trial, he is liable criminally.
is lawful.
⇒ Both person who gives the order and the person who - Evidence of Insanity
executes it, must be acting within the limitation Must refer to the time preceding the act under
prescribed by law. prosecution of the very moment of its execution. If the insanity
is only occasional or intermittent in its nature, the
- When order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate presumption of its continuance does not arise. He who relies
who obeyed it is criminally liable. on such insanity proved at another time must prove its
existence also at the time of the commission of the offense.
- The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will
order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of be presumed that the offense was committed in one of them.
the order and he is not negligent.
When the accused acted upon orders of superior - Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity
officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not question, - Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia praecox
and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of their Most common form of psychosis.
illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is not
liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not - Kleptomania
negligent. If the unlawful act of the accused is due “to his mental
disease or mental defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of
Are those grounds for exemption from punishment his will which would enable him to prevent himself from doing
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the the act,” shall be considered ‘insanity’.
conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
Exemption of punishment is based on the complete - Feeblemindedness is not imbecility
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or absence Can not fall to insanity because it can still distinguish
of negligence on the part of the accused. right from wrong.