Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11, RPC)

Atty. Noel Atienza

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.

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.

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.

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. (Chanrobles virtual law library)

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

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

Self-defense

Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because it would be impossible for the State to protect all its citizens.  Also a person cannot just give up his rights without any resistance being offered.

  • Rights included in self-defense
  1. Defense of person
  2. Defense of rights protected by law

Defense of property

  1. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has a right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or 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. (Art. 429, New Civil Code)
  2. defense of chastity

Elements

Unlawful Aggression– is a physical act manifesting danger to life or limb; it is either actual or imminent.

  1. Actual/real aggression – Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack.  There must be real danger to life a personal safety.
  • Imminent unlawful aggression – it is an attack that is impending or on the point of happening.  It must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary.  The intimidating attitude must be offensive and positively strong.
  • Where there is an agreement to fight, there is no unlawful aggression.  Each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants. Exception:  Where the attack is made in violation of the conditions agreed upon, there may be unlawful aggression.
  • Unlawful aggression in self-defense, to be justifying, must exist at the time the defense is made.  It may no longer exist if the aggressor runs away after the attack or he has manifested a refusal to continue fighting.  If the person attacked allowed some time to elapse after he suffered the injury before hitting back, his act of hitting back would not constitute self-defense, but revenge.
  •  A light push on the head with the hand is not unlawful aggression, but a slap on the face is, because his dignity is in danger.
  • A police officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful aggressor.
  • The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound may belie claim of self-defense.

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Requisites:

  1. Means were used to prevent or repel
    1. Means must be necessary and there is no other way to prevent or repel it
    1. Means must be reasonable – depending on the circumstances, but generally proportionate to the force of the aggressor.
  1. The rule here is to stand your ground when in the right which may invoked when the defender is unlawfully assaulted and the aggressor is armed with a weapon.
  2. The rule is more liberal when the accused is a peace officer who, unlike a private person, cannot run away.
  3. The reasonable necessity of the means employed to put up the defense.
  • The gauge of reasonable necessity is the instinct of self-preservation, i.e. a person did not use his rational mind to pick a means of defense but acted out of self-preservation, using the nearest or only means available to defend himself, even if such means be disproportionately advantageous as compared with the means of violence employed by the aggressor.
  • Reasonableness of the means depends on the nature and the quality of the weapon used, physical condition, character, size and other circumstances.

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

  1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
  2. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, such was not sufficient to cause violent aggression on the part of the attacker, i.e. the amount of provocation was not sufficient to stir the aggressor into the acts which led the accused to defend himself.
  3. When even if the provocation were sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself.
  4. When even if provocation was given by the person defending himself, the attack was not proximate or immediate to the act of provocation.
  5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission.

Kinds of Self-Defense

  1. Self-defense of chastity – to be entitled to complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice.
    1. Defense of property – an attack on the property must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such property.
    1. Self-defense in libel – physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.

Burden of proof – on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution).

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.