Chapter Two 6.
Any person who acts in obedience to an order
Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances
which Exempt From Criminal Liability
1. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)
2. Exempting circumstances (Art. 12) and other
absolutory causes (Arts. 20, 124(las par), 280
(last par), 322, 344)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)
4. Aggravating Circumstances
5. Alternative Circumstances
Imputability- quality by which an act may be ascribed
to a person as its author or owner.
 Implies that the act committed has been feeely
and consciously done and may, therefore, be
put down to the doer as his very own
 Implies that a deed may be imputed to a
person
Responsibility-obligation of suffering the
consequences of crime.
 Obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime
 Implies that the person must take the
consequence of such deed
Guilt- element of responsibility, for a man cannot be
made to answer for the consequences of a crime
unless he is guilty
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.
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.
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 Article are present and that
the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. 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.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
-are those where the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with the law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgresses the law and is free
from both criminal and civil liability
- no civil liability, except in paragraph 4 of Art. 11,
where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefitted by the act
Basis: the law recognizes the non-existence of a crime
by expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article
11 that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any
criminal liability”
Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance
-The moment the offender or the accused invokes any
of the acts amounting to justifying circumstance, he is
in effect admitting the commission of the crime. But he
wanted to evade criminal liability by invoking justifying
circumstances.
Burden of proof- circumstances stated in Article 11 are
matters of defense and it os incumbent upon the
accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the
justifying circumstance claimed by him to the
satisfaction of the court
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
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.
Self-defense- accused must prove by clear and
convincing evidence rgar he indeed acted in defense of
himself
- is not limited to one’s life. The following is the scope
of self-defense
a. Defense of life;
b. Defense of honor or chastity;
c. Defense of property provided that it is coupled
with an attack on the person entrusted with the
said property;
“…must be proved with certainty by sufficient,
satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any
vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person
invoking it and cannot be justifiably entertained where it
is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent
evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful”
 Includes not only the defense of the person or
body of the one assaulted but also that of his
rights
REQUISITES
1. Unlawful Aggression
-Is an attack with physical force or with a
weapon as to cause injury or danger to life or
personal safety.
-must come from the victim.
 -the primordial requisite which must at all times
be present. When absent, there is no self-
defense whether complete or incomplete
- Necessary to be assaulted or attacked, or at
least threatened(offensive and positively
strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an
injury) with an attack
2 kinds of aggression
(1) Lawful
-fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a
right in a more or less violent manner
(2) Unlawful
- Peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual
or imminent
- There must be actual physical force or actual
use of weapon
- Presupposes an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof,
and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude.
- Refers to an attach that has actually broken out
or materialized or at the very least is clearly
imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a
merely threatening stance r posture
Elements of unlawful aggression
In the case of People v. Dulin (G.R. No. 171284,
June 29, 2015), the Supreme Court provided the
elements of unlawful aggression;
 There must be physical or material attack
or assault;
 The attack or assault must be actual or at
least imminent;
 The attack or assault must be unlawful;
by the injured party already ceased to
exist when the accused attached him
 Unlawful aggression must come from the
person who was attacked by the accused
 Public officer exceeding his authority
may become an unlawful aggressor
 Nature, character, location, and extent of
wound of the accused allegedly inflicted
by the injured party may belie claim of
self-defense
 Improbability of the deceased being the
aggressor belies the claim of self
defense
 When aggressor flees, unlawful
aggression no longer exists
 No unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight
 Aggression which is ahead of the
stipulated time and place is unlawful
Kinds of Unlawful Aggression
In the case of People v. Fontanilla (G.R. No.
177743, January 25, 2012), the Supreme Court
held that there are two kinds of unlawful
aggression;
 Actual or Material Unlawful Aggression;
 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.

Peril to one’s life

o Actual-danger must be present, that is,
actually in existence
o Imminent-danger is on the point of
happening, it is not required that the
attack already begins for it may be too
late

Peril to one’s limb- when a person is attacked,

he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm
-blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at vital parts
of the body
-peril to the safety of one’s person from pyshical
injuries
o Actual
o Imminent
-person defending himself must have been
attacked with actual physical force or with actual
use of weapon
 Mere belief of an impending attack is not
sufficient
 “Foot-kick greeting” is not unlawful
aggression
 A strong retaliation for an injury or threat
ay amount to an unlawful aggression
 Retaliation is not self-defense
(Retaliation-aggression that was begun