Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I.
Justifying circumstances (Art. 11)
II.
Exempting circumstances (Art. 12), and absolutory causes
(Arts. 20; 124, last par.; 280, last par.; 332; 344; etc.)
III.
Mitigating circumstance (Art. 13)
IV.
Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
V.
Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)
Imputability - the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as
its author or owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and
consciously done and may be put down to the doer as his very own.
3.
4.
5.
IMPUTABILITY
The person must take
consequence of such deed
the
1|P a g e
6.
o
o
o
2|P a g e
Kinds of aggression
1. Lawful
2. Unlawful
3|P a g e
SELF-DEFENSE
The aggression was still
existing when the aggressor
was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense
Unlawful aggression must come from the person who was attacked by
the accused
The unlawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from
the person who was subsequently attacked by the accused
A public officer exceeding his authority may become an unlawful
aggressor
Nature, character, location and extend of wound of the accused may
belie claim of self-defense
The location, number and seriousness if the stab wounds inflicted
on the victims belie the claim of self-defense. One of the victims
alone sustained twenty-one (21) wounds. (People v Batas)
Accused declined to give any statement when he surrendered to a
policeman is inconsistent with the plea of self-defense
When the accused surrendered to the policemen, he declined to
give any statement, which is the natural course of things he would
have done if he acted to merely to defend himself
A protestation of innocence or justification is the logical and
spontaneous reaction of a man who finds himself in such an
inculpatory predicament as that in which the policeman came upon
him still clutching the death weapon and his victim dying before
him
Physical fact may determine whether the accused acted in selfdefense
o The physical fact belies the claim of self-defense
When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists
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
4|P a g e
5|P a g e
b.
2.
Defense of property
Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person
of one entrusted with said property
3.
Defense of home
Violent entry to anothers house at nighttime, by a person
who is armed with a bolo, and forcing his way into the house,
shows he was ready and looking for trouble, and the manner of his
entry constitutes an act of aggression
The necessity to take a course of action and the use a means of defense
The person attacked is not duty-bound to expose himself to be
wounded or killed, and while the danger to his person or life
subsists, he has a perfect and indisputable right to repel such
danger by wounding his adversary and, if necessary, to disable him
completely so that he may not continue the assault
Reasonableness depends on the circumstances
The reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed depend
upon the circumstances of the case
1.
b.
7|P a g e
2.
those of the person defending himself, and also the place and
occasion on the assault
perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending
himself and the aggressor is not required, because the person
assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to
calculate, and to choose which weapon to use
reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply
material commensurability between the means of attack and
defense
what the law requires is rational equivalence, in the consideration
of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the
imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the
instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense, and
the proportionateness thereof does not demand of such injury
the reasonableness of the means employed will depend upon:
1. the means and quality of the weapons
2. physical condition, character and size
3. other circumstances considered
Law-abiding citizens
there are many lawless elements who kill for the thrill of killing
there is no adequate protection for the law-abiding citizens
when a lawless person attacks on the streets or particularly in the
victims home, he should assume the risk of losing his life from the
act of self-defense by firearm of his victim; otherwise, the law
abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the lawless elements
the requisites of reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the unlawful aggression should in these times of
danger be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citizens
8|P a g e
1.
2.
3.
The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion
killed without attempting to save his life
What one may do in his defense, another may do for him
This code requires that the defense of a stranger be actuated by a
disinterested or generous motive, when it puts down revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive as illegitimate
11 | P a g e
The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from
a violation of law by the actor
There is civil liability in par. 4
GR: there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances
EXC: paragraph 4 of Article 11 but the civil liability is borne by the
persons benefited
Par. 5 Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise or a right or office
2. 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
Fulfillment of a duty
If a detained prisoner under the custody of the accused, a
policeman detailed to guard him, by means of force and violence,
was able to leave the cell and actually attempted to escape,
notwithstanding the warnings given by the accused not to do so,
and was shot by the accused, the latter is entitled to acquittal in
accordance with the ruling laid down in People v Delima
Ruling in Delima case:
o The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The
deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and had
no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit
assault and disobedience with a weapon in his hand,
which compelled the policeman to resort to such an
extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was
justified by the circumstances
When the accused was not avoiding any evil, he cannot invoke the
justifying circumstance of avoidance of avoidance of a greater evil
or injury
12 | P a g e
Both the person who give the order and the person who
executes it, must be acting within the limitations
prescribes by law
13 | P a g e