JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES § Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening;

No crime; no criminal liability; no civil liability except for persons under par. 4 who not required that the attack already begins, for it may be
benefited too late
o It must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon
Burden on evidence by the defense who invoked it o Slap on the face is unlawful aggression (face represent a person
and his dignity)
1. Self-defense: Anyone who acts in defense of his person OR rights, provided o What is not unlawful aggression:
that the following circumstances concur: § Threatening or intimidating attitude
§ Mere belief of an impending attack
a. Unlawful aggression § Insulting words without physical assault
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it o No unlawful aggression in a concerted fight or accepting a
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself challenge to a fight
o Aggression ahead of stipulated time and place is unlawful
2. Defense of a relative: Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of o Unlawful aggression must come from the person attacked by the
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted accused
brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those o When aggressor flees, there is no more unlawful aggression
by consanguinity within the fourth civil degrees, provided that [there is]: § Except: when the purpose of aggressor is to take a more
advantageous position
a. Unlawful aggression o Threat to inflict real (not imaginary) injury is unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it § When an intent to attack is manifest and aggressor picks
c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making up a weapon
defense had no part therein § Expected, but still real
§ Aiming revolver, opening a knife and making a motion to
3. Defense of a stranger: Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of make an attack
a stranger, provided that [there is]: • Lawful aggression
o Lawful – when a person is fulfilling his duty or exercising his right
a. Unlawful aggression in a more or less violent manner
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it o Art 249, Civil Code: A person may use force or violence to protect
c. That the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil his property
motive • Retaliation is not self-defense
o Retaliation – aggression that was begun by injured party already
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ceased to exist when accused attacked him
• Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite o Self-defense – aggression was still existing when the aggressor
o Actual physical assault upon a person or a threat to inflict real was injured or disabled by the person making a defense
injury • Nature, character, location and extent of wounds may be examined to
o When the peril to one’s life, limb or right is either actual or determine if there was self-defense
imminent • Defense of other rights:
§ Actual – that the danger must be present/actually in o Defense of right to chastity
existence o Defense of property (Art 429, Civil Code)
o Defense of home
 • Belief of accused (mistake of fact) may be considered in determining LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON
existence of unlawful aggression DEFENDING HIMSELF
o Example: pistol was loaded with powder, toy pistol • Lack of sufficient provocation is present if:
o No provocation at all
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR o If it was given, it was not sufficient
REPEL IT o If it was sufficient, it did not come from the person defending
• Presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either himself
imminent or actual o If it was given, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
o Threat to inflict real injury – imminent danger aggression
o Actual physical assault – actual danger • The exercise of a right cannot give rise to sufficient provocation
• What does second requisite entail: • It should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to
o There be a necessity to the course of action taken by the stir the aggressor to its commission
person making a defense
§ Reasonableness depends upon the circumstances Flight is incompatible with self-defense – highly evidentiary of guilt
§ Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean
killing the unlawful aggressor RA 9262: Battered women do not incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding
§ In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not under the RPC
indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon
§ Place and location of assault considered (e.g. dark and IN CASE THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON ATTACKED, THAT
uninhabited place; darkness + surprise attack) THE ONE MAKING DEFENSE HAD NO PART THEREIN
o There be a necessity of the means used • Can arise from mistake of fact
§ Test of reasonableness – will depend upon nature and • Gauge of reasonable necessity depends on the situation as it appears
quality of the weapon used by aggressor, his physical to the person repelling the aggression
condition, character, size and other circumstances, and
those of the person defending himself, and also the THAT THE PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENGE,
place and occasion of the assault RESENTMENT OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE
§ Perfect equality between weapons used is not required; • Strangers are persons not included among those under paragraph 2
what the law requires is rational equivalence
§ The choice of a deadlier weapon by the person 4. State of necessity: Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
defending himself is deemed reasonable if it cannot an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites
be shown that the person: are present:
• Had other available means
• If there was other means, he could coolly a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
choose the less deadly weapon to repel the b. That the injury be feared be greater than that done to avoid it
assault c. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
• A police officer is not required to afford a person attacking him the
opportunity for a fair and equal struggle – it is his duty to overcome his “DAMAGE TO ANOTHER”
opponent • Injury to persons and damage to property

THAT THE EVIL SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED ACTUALLY EXISTS

 • If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
may happen in the future, paragraph 4 is not applicable There is a crime; no criminal liability; there is civil liability except for persons under
• One’s own safety is of greater importance than another (self-preservation) par. 4 and 7
• The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a
violation of law by the actor Burden on evidence by the defense who invoked it

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty OR in the lawful exercise of a 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
right or office interval

REQUISITES: IMBECILE
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty OR in the lawful • While advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of
exercise of a right or office children between two and seven years of age
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary • Exempt in ALL cases
consequence of the due performance of duty or lawful exercise of such
right or office INSANE
• Not exempt when it is proven that he acted during a lucid interval
• An officer is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him • Presumption of sanity – burden of proof on the defense
with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest • There must be a total deprivation of freedom of the will
could be effected otherwise (Rules of Court) • Evidence must refer to time preceding the act or to the very moment
• The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear to be an of its execution
aggressor, but his aggression is not unlawful, it being necessary to fulfill o Direct evidence or even circumstantial evidence, if clear and
his duty convincing
• Actual invasion of property may consist of mere disturbance of possession • When he was sane at the time of the commission but becomes insane
or real disposession after, he is liable criminally, but the trial will be suspended until he be
restored to his full mental capacity to afford him a fair trial
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some • Schizophrenia
lawful purpose • Kleptomania is mitigating?
• Not feeblemindedness, nor pedophilia and amnesia
REQUISITES:
1. An order has been issued by a superior Other cases of lack of intelligence: somnambulism or sleepwalking, malignant
2. Order must be for some lawful purpose malaria
3. Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
2. A person under fifteen years of age
• Both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it must
be acting within the limitations prescribed by law RA 9344 or Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
• Absence of third requisite: executioner put convict to death on a day earlier • A child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the
than the date fixed by court offense shall be exempt from criminal liability
• Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, if • However, he shall be subject to an intervention program
he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent
3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen years old, unless he
has acted with discernment
RA 9344 or Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force
• A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt
from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, ELEMENTS:
UNLESS he has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall 1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force
be subject to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act 2. That the physical force must be irresistible
• The exemption does not include exemption from civil liability 3. That the physical force must come from a third person
• Presumption of minority – in case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
shall be resolved in his favor • Compelled to bury the body when he was striked with butts of guns falls
• The minor is presumed to have acted WITHOUT discernment under this paragraph, exempting him from liability
• Child in conflict with the law – a person who at the time of the commission • Force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who
of the offense is below 18 years old but not less than 15 years and one- acts not only without will but against his will
day old • Duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and
• Discernment – capacity of the child to understand the differences impending
between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act; may
be shown by: 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
o Manner of committing the crime (e.g. use of nighttime to avoid or greater injury
detection)
o Conduct of offender REQUISITES:
• Allegation of “intent to kill” in the Information is sufficient allegation 1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
of discernment 2. Fear must be real and imminent
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed
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 • A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-
ELEMENTS: defense in equal combat.
1. A person is performing a lawful act • In the eyes of the law, nothing will excuse that act of joining an enemy, but
2. With due care the fear of immediate death (treason).
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident • Mere fear of a member of the Huks to disobey or refuse to carry out orders
4. Without fault or intention of causing it of the organization, in the absence of proof of actual physical or moral
compulsion to act, is not sufficient to exempt the accused from criminal
• Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it fired and seriously liability.
injured the assailant, is a lawful act
• But the act of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, not being in PAR 5 VS PAR 6
self-defense, is unlawful – it is a light threat; and there is no room for • Irresistible force: violence or physical force to compel
invocation of accident as ground for exemption • Uncontrollable fear: intimidation or threat to compel
• Accident – something that happens outside the sway of our will, and
although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences some lawful or insuperable cause
• If the consequences are foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence
• Accident and negligence are contradictory ELEMENTS:
1. That an act is required by law to be done
 2. That a person fails to perform such act
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause

• Priest’s non-disclosure of information confessed to him

• Severe dizziness and extreme debility of woman to leave child in thicket is
not infanticide

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
• Article 11: justifying circumstances
• Article 12: exempting circumstances
• Article 6: spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the
commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts of execution
• Article 20: accessory is relative of principal
• Art 124, last paragraph: legal grounds for arbitrary detention
• Art 247: Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (death -> destierro; physical injuries -> exempt)
• Art 280, par 3: legal grounds for trespass
• Art 332: crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed
against a relative
• Art 344, par 4: marriage of offender with offended party when the crime
committed is rape, abduction, seduction or acts of lasciviousness
• Instigation
o Instigation – public officer or private detective induces an
innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or
after the commission of the crime by the latter
o Entrapment – a person has planned, or is about to commit, a
crime and ways and means are resorted to by a public officer to
trap and catch the criminal