Basic knowledge about justifying circumstance

1. BY: CHELDY S. ELUM BA-PABLEO,MPA,LLB
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

2. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
(Article ll of the Revised Penal Code)
 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
transgressed the law and is free
from both civil and criminal
liability.

3. Do not incur any criminal
liability
 a. Defense of oneself (Self-defense)
 b. Defense of a relatives
 c. Defense of a stranger
 d. State of necessity
 e. Fulfillment of lawful duty/exercise of
rights or office
 f. Obedience to superior order

4. I. Self-defense
 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.
 “burden of proof rest upon the accused”—his duty
is to establish self-defense by CLEAR and
CONVINCING evidence.
 Must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
NOT the weakness of that for the prosecution.

5. Element of Self-defense
a. Unlawful aggression;
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression; and
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself
INCLUDES : Defense of life, chastity, property and
honor.

6. Unlawful aggression
 It must be actual, sudden, unexpected attack
or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude.
 The accused must present proof of positively
strong act of real aggression.
 Unlawful aggression must be such as to put
in real peril the life or personal safety of the
person defending himself or of others being
defended and not imagined threat.

7. Unlawful aggression
 Unlawful Aggression is the primordial
requisites which must at all time be present.
When unlawful aggression is absent, there is
no self-defense.
 “indispensable” requisite (condition “sine qua
non”)-There can be no self defense, complete
or incomplete UNLESS the victim has
committed an unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself.

8. Unlawful aggression
 Unlawful aggression must be actual physical
assault/force or actual use of weapon or at least
a threat to inflict a real injury.
 When there is no peril to one’s life, limb, or
right there is no aggression.
 Insulting words address to the accused, no
matter how objectionable they may have been,
WITHOUT PHYSICAL ASSAULT, could not
constitute unlawful aggression.

9. Unlawful aggression
 A SLAP OF THE FACE is an unlawful
aggression.
 Reason: since the face represents a
person and his dignity, slapping
therefore, is a serious personal attack
as placing in real danger a person’s
dignity, rights and safety. (PP vs
Sabio)

10. Unlawful aggression
 A public officer exceeding his authority may
become unlawful aggressor.
 “A sheriff carrying out a writ of execution,
exceeded his authority by taking against the
will of the judgment debtor personal property
with sentimental value had the right to repel
the unlawful aggression.”
(PP vs Hernandez)

11. Unlawful aggression
 When the aggressor ran away after the attack or when
the defender was able to wrest the weapon from the
aggressor, aggression no longer exist.
 No unlawful aggression when there is an agreement to
fight. But aggression which is ahead of the stipulated
time and place is unlawful.
 One who voluntarily joined the fight cannot claim self-
defense.
 The person defending himself must stop for when
aggression ceased and he still continued to attack, HE
THEN BECOMES THE AGGRESSOR.

12. Reasonable necessity
 Two (2) phases used:
a. to prevent, b. to repel
 The law protects not only the person who repels it
(actual), but even the person who tries to prevent an
aggression that is expected (imminent or about to
happen)
 There be a necessity of the course of action taken by
the person making a defense and there be a necessity
of the means used. (Both must be reasonable)

13. Reasonable necessity
 People v Gutual
- It does not imply commensurability
between the means of the attack and defense-
the law requires a rational equivalence which
is determined by 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. The proportionateness thereof does
not defend upon the harm done, but rests
upon the imminent danger of such injury.

14. Reasonable necessity
 Self-preservation instinct kick in.
 What you used may be disproportionately unfair
but still valid when you consider the other
circumstances: a. time of day, b. size of opponent
EXAMPLE:
A guy defending himself use a shotgun –the
aggressor only used a knife (must prove that it was
the only weapon he had)

15. Reasonable necessity
 EXEMPTION: Does not include running
after the attack after you warded him off
UNLESS you are a member of the police.
 Means reasonable necessity of means and
actual or imminent aggression still stand
but provocation is modified.

16. Reasonable necessity
 US v Mojica
BEFORE – “retreat to the wall”- which makes it duty of a
person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he meets the
assault with force.
NOW- “Stand ground when in the right” which now applies
when the aggressor is armed with a weapon and is especially
more liberal if the person attacked is a peace officer in the
performance of duty.
SO, where the accused has the right to be, the law does not require
him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him
with deadly weapon.

17. Reasonable necessity
 Whether or not the means employed is reasonable,
will depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the
weapon used by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL
CONDITION, CHARACTER, SIZE and other
circumstances, and those of a person defending
himself, and also the PLACE and OCCASION of the
assault.

18. Reasonable necessity
 In defense of Chastity, there must be
imminent or immediate danger of rape to
justify killing. If it were only acts of
lasciviousness, killing is an unreasonable
means. Intent to rape must be present.
 Slander may be a necessary means to repel
slander. But it must not be more than
needed to defend oneself from the
defamatory remarks.

19. Reasonable necessity
 Defense of person or rights does not necessarily the
killing of the unlawful aggressor. But the person
defending himself cannot be expected to think
clearly so as to control his blow.
 The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be
justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at
the time when the elements of complete self are still
present. (PP vs Brownell)

20. Lack of sufficient provocation
 The one defending himself must not have given
cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by
inciting or provoking the assailant.
 Provocation must be sufficient— be proportionate
to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the
aggressor ton its commission (PP vs Alongca)
 Sufficient provocation is not given to the person
defending himself.

21. Lack of sufficient provocation
 ELEMENTS:
(Cano v. people Gr No. 155258 Oct 2003)
1. No provocation at all
2. Even provocation was given, it was not sufficient
3. If provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself
4. If a provocation was given by the person defending
himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the
act of aggression.

22. Lack of sufficient provocation
 It shows that there may have been
provocation but it should not be sufficient
and it must not immediately precede the act.
It is not enough that the provocative act be
just unreasonable or annoying.

23. Defense of property
People v Narvaez April 20,1983
 In defense of property, killing is not justified.
Exception: There must be , in addition, the necessity
to save another life.
-If the aggression is on property, even if there was
no attack on the defender or owner or possessor,
defense is proper but not to the extent of killing the
aggression, otherwise the means used to repel or
prevent the aggression will not be reasonable.

24. Doctrine of self-help
 Article 429 of New Civil Code provides that “ 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.”

25. DEFENSE OF HOME
 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, shows he
was ready and looking for trouble, the
manner of his entry constitutes an act of
aggression.
 THE OWNER of the house need not wait for a
blow before repelling the aggression. (PP vs
Mirabiles)

26. ll. Defense of relatives
 Any person who acts in defense of the person or
rights of his:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers/sisters or
relative by affinity in the same degrees
5. Those by consanguinity within 4th degree

27. Defense of relatives
 CONSANGUINITY—refers to blood relatives.
1. Brothers and sisters within the 2nd degree
2. Uncle and nieces or aunt and nephew within
the 3rd civil degrees
3. First cousins are within the 4th civil degrees

28. Defense of relatives
BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION:
 Humanitarian reason/sentiment
 Upon impulse of blood which impels
men to rush on occasion of great
perils, to the rescue of those close to
them by ties of blood.

29. Defense of a relative
 REQUISITES :
a. Unlawful Aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent and repel the unlawful
aggression
c. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the person defending had
no part therein

30. Defense of a Relative
 The relative may be the one provoked by the
attacker but the defender must show that he wasn’t
provoked by the attacker.
EXAMPLE:
When a father returns from work to find his
daughter being raped.
The father kills the rapist by slamming a solid
wooden chair on his head while the rapist is still
doing his things.

31. lll. Defense of strangers
a. Unlawful Aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent and repel the unlawful aggression.
c. Person defending is not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motives.
NOTE: Defense of relatives beyond the fourth degree
of consanguinity is defense of stranger.

32. Defense of strangers
BASIS:
 Person acting in defense of others are in the
same condition and upon the same plane as
those who act in defense of themselves. The
ordinary man would not stand idly
companion killed without attempting to
save his life. (US vs Aviado)

33. Defense of strangers
 No provocation
 Defender not motivated by
a. Hate
b. Revenge
c. Any other evil motive
 Stranger includes:
1. Boss
2. Subordinate
3. friends

34. lV. Avoidance of greater evil or
injury
 Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another,
provided the following REQUISITES are present:
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exist,
2. Injury feared be grater than that done to avoid it
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it

35. Avoidance of greater evil or
injury
 The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it—the instinct of self-preservation will always make
one feel that his own safety is of greater importance
than that of another.
 The greater evil should not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudence of the actor.
 When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he
cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of avoidance
of a greater evil or injury

36. Vll. Fulfillment of duty
 Any person who acts in fulfilment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
 Must proved that he was the holder of that
position when he was performing his duty
 Happens in pursuit or when a criminal
refuses to surrender.

37. Fulfillment of duty
 WON’T APPLY unfortunately to a security guard if
he kills a thief who refuses to stop.
 A security guard’s law enforcement power is up to
the PREVENTION ONLY.
EXCEPTION:
He can only kill if he is defending not pursuing.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
A prison guard however can kill an escaped prisoner

38. Fulfillment of duty
REQUISITES:
a. The offender acted in the performance of duty or
lawful exercise of a right or office;
b. The injury caused or the offense committed is
the necessary consequences of the due
performance such as right or office.

39. State of necessity
REQUISITES:
a. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
b. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it;
c. There is no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
NOTE: The state of necessity must not be caused by the
negligence or violation of the law of the actor
otherwise this benefit cannot be invoked.

40. Fulfillment of duty
German Mngt and Services Inc V. Court of Appeals
177 SCRA 495.
Under the doctrine of self help in Article 249 of the Civil
Code justifies the act of the owner or lawful
possessor of a thing to use force necessary to protect
his proprietary or possessory rights. He must
however exercise this right at the very moment that
he is being deprived of his property. When
possession has already been lost, he must resort to
judicial process in reclaiming his property.

41. Obedience to superior order
 REQUISITES :
a. An order has been issued by a superior.
b. The order is for a legal purpose;
c. The means used to carry out such order
is lawful.

42. Obedience to superior order
 When the order is not for a lawful
purpose, the subordinate who obeyed
it is criminally liable.
 HOWEVER, If the subordinate is not
liable for carrying an illegal order of his
superior, if he is NOT AWARE of the
illegality of the order and he is not
negligent.

43. Obedience to superior order
 Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan
HELD : Even if the order of the superior is
illegal, if it appears to be legal and the
subordinate is not aware of its illegality,
the subordinate is not liable.

44. THANK YOU FOR READING!
CHELDHAYE