Self-Defense

(source: http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/selfdefense )
Our criminal laws provide for instances where a person may defend himself and not
be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Under Section 1,
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following do not
incur any criminal liability:
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.
The justifying circumstance of self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be
proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.
(People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that
he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in
order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense)
claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the
strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even
if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.
It is basic that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
(1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed
to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We shall now
discuss the following requisites in detail:
A. Unlawful Aggression:
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or
limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim,
assuming that to be true, does not constitute unlawful aggression. Real aggression
presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor,
which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack.
Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other deadly
weapon.
B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed:
Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of
weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other
circumstances as well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the

attack. Although a knife is more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there
is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the accused.
C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself:
Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to
stir one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar
language is sufficient provocation. This element refers to the person defending
himself and is essentially inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.
(source: http://www.manilatimes.net/one-can-claim-self-defense-only-under-specificcircumstances/161759/ by Chief/Atty. Persida Acosta)
While self-defense is a legally recognized justification for committing an act that
would ordinarily be considered as a crime such as killing or injuring a person, you
should know that the law requires the presence of specific circumstances before it
can be availed of as a proper legal defense. The Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines (RPC) provides that:
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
1.
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided 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.
First, one of the circumstances that is required to be present to avail the defense of
self-defense is the presence of unlawful aggression. The Supreme Court elaborated
on this matter in one of its decisions, which states that:|
A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the
elements. However, the most important among all the elements is the element of
unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for selfdefense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. As this court
said in People v. Catbagan, There can be no self-defense, whether complete or
incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the
person who resorted to self-defense.
xxx xxx xxx
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real
imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual,
sudden, unexpected or imminent dangernot merely threatening and intimidating
action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat
to ones life (People of the Philippines vs. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12,
2011).

Second, the requirement of reasonable necessity of the means used to defend ones
self from an unlawful aggression entails the use of reasonable means of selfdefense that is commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to
be averted (People of the Philippines vs. Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10,
2003). And whether the means employed is reasonable depends on the nature and
quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size
and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the
place and the occasion of the assault (J.B.L.Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 2008
ed., p. 180). This means that the determination of reasonableness of the means
employed for self-defense relies on the appreciation of the facts surrounding that
incident that required the use of self-defense.
Third, the law requires that the person claiming self-defense should not have given
sufficient provocation for the victim to attack or commit aggression against the
former. Once all of these are proven before the court, then you and your wife may
use self-defense as a legal justification to avoid criminal liability.

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.
chanroble s virtual law library

chanroble s

virtual law library

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

himself.
chanrobles virtual law library

2. Any one 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.
chanroble s virtual law library

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 Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
chanroble s virtual law library

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.
chanrobles virtual law library

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful

exercise of a right or office.
chanrobles virtual la w library

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for

some lawful purpose.
chanroble s virtual law l

ibrary

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the

following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
chanrobles virtual la

w library

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of
the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted
with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care
of some institution or person mentioned in saidArt. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful insuperable cause.
chanroble s virtual law library

chanroble s virtual law library

chanrobles virtual law library

chanroble s virtual law library

chanroble s virtual law library

chanrobles virtual la w library

chanrobles virtual law library

chanrobles virtual law library