IS IT NECESSARY FOR THE PROVOCATION TO BE SUFFICIENT THAT THE ONE WHO GAVE IT MUST HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF USING VIOLENCE AND THUS BECOMING AN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR HIMSELF?
It is not necessary. The sufficiency depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident.
A was running amuck with a dagger and was rushing towards B. The latter then got a club and hit A with it in the head.
Is there self-defense?
The first and second requisite of self-defense is present, as well as the third requisite since there was no provocation whatsoever on the part of B.
A, having discovered that B had built a part of his fence on A’s land asked B why he had done so. This question angered B who immediately attacked A.
If A would kill B to defend himself, is the third requisite of self-defense present?
Even if it is true that the question of A angered B, thereby making B attack A, such provocation is not sufficient.
(US v. Pascua)
A’s brother provoked B. B then unlawfully attacked A, who defended himself and hit B on the head. A invoked self-defense. But B holds that there was sufficient provocation given by A’s brother, and so the third requisite of self-defense is not present.
Who is correct?
A is correct.
There is self-defense in this case. The sufficient provocation was not given by the person defending himself which in this case is A, but by A’s brother. The third requisite of self-defense refers exclusively to the “person defending himself.”
A slapped B two days before and B, upon meeting A, attacked the latter but was seriously injured when A defended himself.
Can A invoke self-defense?
The provocation by A of slapping B in the face should be disregarded. It was not proximate and immediate to the aggression made by B. In this case, the third requisite of self-defense s still present.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
WHO ARE RELATIVES THAT MAY BE DEFENDED?
- Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters
- Relatives by affinity in the same degree
- Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
A is the husband of B. A died.
Is B still related by affinity to A’s brother?
Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted in issue, a child, who is still living, in which case, the relationship of affinity continues.
A acted in defense of the husband of A’s sister-in-law.
Is there defense of the relative in this case?
the relation between A and the husband of A’s sister-in-law is not one of those mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 11.
The husband of A’s sister-in-law is a stranger to A for purposes of the law on defense of relatives.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES?
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
- In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein.
DISTINGUISH SELF-DEFENSE FROM DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE.
The first two requisites are the same for both.
But the third requisite for both are different. In defense of relative, the third requisite does not mean that the relative defended should give provocation to the aggressor.The clause merely states an event which may or may not take place.
There is still legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation.
A slapped the face of B, who as a consequence drew out his knife and tried to stab A. C, the father of A, saw B trying to stab his son so he killed the latter.
Was there defense of relative?
The fact that the relative defended gave the provocation is immaterial. The third requisite requires only that the one defending had no part in the provocation.
- But if C induced his son to slap B, then there would not be a complete defense of relative since C already took part in the provocation.
A was previously shot by the brother of B, starting a feud between them. One day, B unlawfully attacked A’s cousin and was about to kill him when A suddenly took his gun and shot B.
Is there defense of relative in this case?
It cannot be said that in attacking the victim, the accused was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather he was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil motive because of a running feud between them.
(People of the Philippines v. Toring)
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR DEFENSE OF A STRANGER?
- Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
- The person defending must not be induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
WHO ARE DEEMED STRANGERS?
Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 11, is considered a stranger for purposes of this law.
A heard screams and cries for help. When A responded, he saw B attacking his (B’s) wife with a dagger. A approached B and struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the course of which A inflicted wounds on B.
Did A commit a crime?
In this case, there is a defense of a stranger because all the three requisites are present.
A has a grudge against B. One day, A saw B attacking a woman. A got a cane and hit B on the head.
Is A justified in accordance with a defense of a stranger?
It depends. Paragraph 3 of Article 11 uses the phrase “be not induced.” Hence, even if the person enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger from bodily harm, the third requisite of defense of stranger still exists. The third requisite would be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the defense of a stranger would be only a pretext.
A, an assassin was trying to kill B. They were fighting for the possession of A’s gun. After B was able to grab the gun, he pointed it to A and when about to shoot. C then came and saw B about to kill A. C took out his own gun and shot B. A then ran away.
Is C guilty for killing B?
All the three requisites of defense of stranger is present in this case.
The fact that it was the innocent man who was killed will not matter because C acted in the honest belief that it was B who was the aggressor.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY?
- That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
- That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
- That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
WHAT DIFFERENTIATES PAR. 4 FROM THE OTHER PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLE 11?
As a rule, there is no criminal nor civil liability in justifying circumstances. It is only in paragraph 4 where the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit.
- For example, if a driver swerved his car to prevent hitting a child and hit a car instead, he will be civilly liable for the damages caused in the other car.
A, fearing that a pregnancy would cause the death of his wife and the expected child, gave abortive pills to his wife. He is accused of the crime of intentional abortion.
Can he invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury?
The evil sought to be avoided must actually exist. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, par. 4 of Article 11 is not applicable.
A was driving his car with due diligence. Suddenly, a truck appeared in front of him. If he would swerve his car to the left, he would fall into a precipice, or if he would swerve it to the right he would injure a passerby.
Is there a crime if he injures the passerby?
He was forced to choose between losing his life and injuring the passerby. It is reasonable that between his life and that of another, it is justified to choose one’s life due to man’s nature for self- preservation. In this case, all the requisites for avoidance of a greater evil has been met.
Suppose in the above example, A was driving his car at a very high speed and although he saw the truck approaching, he did not slacken his speed.
Can he still invoke avoidance of a greater evil or injury?
The greater evil or injury must not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.
A, with a bolo, was attacking B who was wounded. B’s son was about to shoot A to defend his father when C, A’s friend, embraced him and grappled with the gun. In the course of the struggle, B’s son got killed.
Can C claim that he was trying to avoid a greater evil or injury?
C was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disarm B’s son. The act of C in preventing B’s son from shooting A was designed to insure the killing of B without any risk to the assailant.
PARAGRAPH 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE?
- That the accused acted in the performance of a duty in the lawful exercise of a right or office
- That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
THIS PARAGRAPH FROM SELF-DEFENSE.
- In this paragraph, it is not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the performance of a duty or lawful exercise of a right or office.
- If there is unlawful aggression, then it is self- defense.
Two police officers were ordered to apprehend A, a very dangerous criminal. They went to his house and opened the door to his bedroom. They saw a person lying down on the bed, sleeping. Because they didn’t want to take any chances, they shot the person. It turned out that the person was not A.
Can the two officers invoke paragraph 5?
Although the first requisite is present because the police officers, who were trying to get a wanted criminal, were acting in the performance of a duty. But the second requisite is not present because through impatience, over-anxiety, or in their desire to take no chances, the accused exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they killed a sleeping person without making an inquiry to his identity.
(People of the Philippines v. Oanis)
A escaped from jail. He was spotted B, a policeman, outside a bar. When B tried to arrest him, A took out his knife and tried to stab B. A fled and B told him to stop or he would shoot. A continued running so B shot him, killing him.
Did B commit a crime?
- The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under obligation to surrender and had no right to commit assault on the officer.
- The policeman was compelled to resort to such an extreme measure, which although it may prove fatal was justified in the circumstances.
But it must always be remembered that the force used in the circumstances must be reasonably necessary and the use of unnecessary force is never justified.
A, a thief, was confronted by B, a policeman. A tried to put his hand on his pocket. B shot him, because he was afraid that A would get a weapon. It turned out that there was no weapon in A’s pockets.
Can B invoke the defense of fulfillment of duty?
The attitude adopted by A in putting his hands in his pocket is not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. He was unarmed and the accused could have warned him, to stop where he was, raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do, instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that the deceased was armed.
(People of the Philippines v. Tan)
A leveled his gun at B, threatening the latter with death. B grabbed the muzzle of the gun and in the struggle for the possession, A squeezed the trigger causing it to fire, hitting and killing B.
Is A criminally liable?
There is in this case no performance of a duty or a lawful exercise of a right or office. A is criminally liable under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
A, the neighbor or B, entered the latter’s property one night. While he was about to steal a guava fruit, B threw a stone at him resulting in injuries.
Is B criminally liable?
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the 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.