Article 11: Justifying Circumstances: The following do not incur criminal liability

1. Self-defense
2. Defense of relatives (spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity and by
consanguinity up to the 4th civil degree)
3. Defense of stranger provided such defense is not motivated with
resentment or revenge
4. To avoid greater evil or injury provided that such act is indeed
greater than the defensive act to be done, and such injury is actual
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued by a superior for lawful cause
*Justifying circumstances do not incur criminal liability; hence no crime is
committed, no criminal.
*Burden of proof is upon the person who claims such justifying circumstance.
1. SELF-DEFENSE
-Burden of proof is on the person who alleges self-defense (accused). He must
rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution.
-Self-defense 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.
-Self-defense includes not only the defense of his own person (his body) but
also of his lawful rights.
-Self-defense is considered to be lawful as the State cannot prevent
aggression on its citizens and then offer protection to the person unjustly
attacked. It cannot be conceived that a person should succumb to an
unlawful aggression without offering any assistance.
Requisites:
Unlawful aggression: on the part of the person injured or
killed
-Presence of unlawful aggression is a 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 for if there is no unlawful aggression,
there is nothing to prevent or to repel.
-Aggression must be unlawful and real; it is equivalent to assault
or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent
kind. It is an actual, sudden, unexpected attack and not merely
threatening or intimidating.
-There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.
Thus, insulting words addressed to the accused, no matter how
objectionable they may have been, without physical assault
could not constitute unlawful aggression.

*Slap on the face is considered unlawful aggression.

-Retaliation is not self-defense and therefore not a justifying
circumstance. In retaliation, aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the accused
attacked him; in self-defense, aggression was still existing
when aggressor was injured or disabled by person making
defense.
-The defense should be simultaneous with the attack or else, it
becomes retaliation.
-Nature, character, location, and extent of wound of accused
allegedly inflicted by injured party may belie the claim of selfdefense.
-When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists,
because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense
has no more right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.
However, if it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in
running away or retreating is to take a more advantageous
position to insure success of attack already began by him,
unlawful aggression is considered still continuing, and the one
making defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and
disable him.
*There is no unlawful aggression when there is agreement to
fight (because they are both assailant and assaulted at the same
time) but if aggression happens ahead of the stipulated time in
the agreed fight, there is unlawful aggression hence, self-dense
will be valid.
*There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol
provided accused believed it was a real gun.
Reasonable necessity on the means used
-Based on the reason of repelling or preventing the attack
The second requisite of defense means that (1) there be a
necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a
defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the means used. BOTH
MUST BE REASONABLE.
-In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled,
human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but
obedience to instinct of self-preservation. The reasonableness of
the necessity to take a course of action and reasonableness of
necessity of means used depends upon the circumstances of the
case.
*Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean the
killing of the unlawful aggressor but the person defending
himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his
blow.
-Test of Reasonableness:

.nature and quality of the weapon

.physical condition, size, character of aggressor
.other circumstances
*Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
unlawful aggression to be liberally construed in favor of lawabiding citizens.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused
Reason: when the person defending himself from attack by
another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is
also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression. To
be entitled of benefit of justifying circumstance, the one
defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression
by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking assailant.
-Cases where self-defense may be raised based on 3 rd requisite:
.No provocation at all was given to aggressor by person
defending himself
.Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient or
.Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself
.Even if provocation given by the person defending himself, it
was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
*Battered woman Syndrome as defense (RA 9262)

2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Basis of justification: it is founded not only upon humanitarian sentiment but
also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of
great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.
-Who can be defended?
.Spouse
.Ascendants
.Descendants
.Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters
. or relatives by affinity (parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, or brother or
sister-in-law)
.Relatives by consanguinity within 4th civil degree
-Requisites:
.Unlawful aggression
.Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
.In case provocation was given by person attacked; the one making a
defense had no part therein
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
-Who are strangers?
Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives in paragraph 2.
Hence, even a close friend or a distant relative is a stranger. (kahit boypren,
girlpren)

-Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The
ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without
attempting to save his life.
-Requisites:
.Unlawful aggression
.Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
.Person defending must not be induced with revenge, resentment or evil
motive
*Important caveat: Person defending must not be induced with resentment,
revenge or evil motive. Hence, even if a person has a standing grudge
against the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger from serious
bodily harm or possible death, third requisite of defense of stranger still
exists. The third requisite will be lacking if such person was prompted by his
grudge against assailant, because alleged defense of stranger would only be
a pretext.
4. AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY
-Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
-Injury feared is greater than that done to avoid it.
-The greater evil should not be brought about by negligence or imprudence of
the actor
*This paragraph however, incurs civil liability but the civil liability is borne by
persons benefited.
5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
-Requisites:
.Accused acted in the performance of duty or in lawful exercise of a right or
office
.Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of due
performance of duty or lawful exercise of such right or office
*Shooting an offender who refuses to surrender
*Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using force as
reasonably necessary to secure and detain offender, overcome his resistance,
prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from
bodily harm, yet he is never justified in using necessary force in treating him
with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous means when arrest could
be effected otherwise.
6. OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER FROM A SUPERIOR
-Requisites:
.Order has been issued by superior
.Such order must be for some lawful purpose
.Means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
*Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it, must
be acting within the limitations prescribed by law (Pp v. Wilson and Dolores)

*When the order is not for a lawful purpose, subordinate who obeyed it is
criminally liable. However, if subordinate is carrying out an illegal order of his
superior and was not aware the illegality of the order and that he was not
negligent, he is not liable.

Article 12: Exempting Circumstances