ARTICLE 11- JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES NB: -There is no crime committed, the act being justified.

:It is incumbent upon the accuse d to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court. 1. ANYONE WHO ACTS IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES CONCUR:

a. Unlawful Aggression

b.

c.

REQUISITES: a.

b.

c.

3 REQUISITES: a. b. c.

REQUISITES: a.

b.

c. 5

REQUISITES: a.

b.

Requisites: a. That an order has been issued by a superior. b. That such order must be for some lawful purpose. c. That the means used by the subordinate to carry said order is lawful.

:It is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in defense of himself. >by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence :He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution. :The plea of self-evidence cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but in itself is extremely doubtful. :Includes defense of the PERSON, BODY, and RIGHTS :REASON: it is impossibel for the State to prevent aggression upon its citizens and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. :UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON INJURED OR KILLED BY THE ACCUSED. :Condition sine qua non :It is necessary that we be assaulted or attacked or at least be threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner. :Aggression must be UNLAWFUL. >It is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assult of an immediate and imminent kind. (PP vs. Alconga 78P366) >There is an unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either ACTUAL or IMMINENT. >In ACTUAL PHYSICAL assault upon person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury. >In THREAT, the same must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury. >It presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger. >PERIL TO ONE'S LIFE: ACTUAL (danger must be present, actually in existence) or IMMINENT (danger is on happening; not required that the attack already begins). >PERIL TO ONE'S Limb: ACTUAL (danger must be present, actually in existence) or IMMINENT (danger is on happening; not required that the attack already begins).

***there must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. ***slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. ***mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient. >In retaliation, the aggression was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attack him. It is not a self-defense. In self-defense, the aggression was stille existing when aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense. >If it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is considered still continuing and the one making a defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable hum. >The attack made by the deceased and the killing of the deceased by the defendant should succeed each other or simultaneous without appreciable interval of time. ***The accused must have no time nor occasion for deliberation and cool thinking, >The ulawful aggression must come, directly or indirectly, from the person who was attacked by the accused. >Self-defense must be declared in a confession. >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, >No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight. -->each of the protagonists is at once assailant and assaulted. >Aggression which is ahead of the stipulated time and place is unlawful. (Justo vs, CA, 53 OG 4083) >One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim self-defense. >Where the accused is where he has the right to be , the law does not require him to retreat when the assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon. (US vs. Domen, 37 Phil 57) >How to determine the unlawful aggressor-->in absence of direct evidence, it shall be presumed that the person who was deeply offended by the insult was the one who'

believed he had a right to demand explanation from the perpetrator of that insult and the one who also struck the first blow when he was not satisfied with the explanation offered. (US vs. Laurel, 22 Phil 252). >Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights ***defense of property can be invoked only as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person. >There is self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy pistol provided the accused believed it was a real gun. >A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and material aggression is not unlaw aggression. In order to consider that unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made. DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHT: >PRESUPPOSES: the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual. >A threat to inflict real injury places us in imminent danger. >An actual physical assault places us in actual danger. >The reasonableness of the necessity of the means and the reasonableness of the necessity to take a course of action depends upon circumstances of the case. ***The theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, and when the danger or risj on his part has disappeared, his stabbing the aggressor while defending himself should have stopped. (PP vs. Calavagan Aug. 10, 1955). >The person defending is not expected to control his blow. >In repelling or preventing an unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assialant and not indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon. ***otherwise, his act of defense was not exercised with due care. APPLICABLE TO: SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE DEFENSE OF A STRANGER >means must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.

>TEST OF REASONABLENESS: 1. Nature and Quality of the weapon used by the aggressor. 2. Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances and those of the person defending himself. 3. Place and occasion of the assault. >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. >Limitations: 1. There was no other available means, or 2. There was other means, the one making a defense could not coolly choose the less deadly weapon to repel the aggression. >Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression to be literally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens. >RULE of reasonable necessity when the one defending is a PEACE OFFICER: ***It is his duty to overcome his opponent. ***he represent the law which he must uphold. APPLICABLE TO: SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE DEFENSE OF A STRANGER >Third requisite to be considered in SELF-DEFENSE: 1. No provocation at all was given by the person defending himself; 2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or ***It is siffcient when it is proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission. 3. When, even of the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or 4. When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression. APPLICABLE: SLEF-DEFENSE >Relatives that can be defended: 1. Spouse 2. Ascendants 3. Descendants 4. Legitimate, natural, adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. 5. Relatives by consanguinity within fourth civil degree. ***Refers to blood relatives.

6. Relatives by affinity. ***death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is still living. >Without which, any defense is not justified. (PP vs. Agapinay) >Unlawful aggression can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one making a defense. >The reasonableness of the means adopted is not one mathematical calculation or material commensurability between the means of attack and defense but the imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. >Even of the person defending was also induced by revenge or hatred, as long as the 3 requisites of defense of relatives are present, it will still be a legitimate defense. >Strangers are those not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in pa. 2.

>SAME >SAME >Third requisite is lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against his assailant. >Damage to another- covers injury to persons and damage to property >As a rule, there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances. >PAR. 4 ART. 11, THERE IS CIVIL LIABILITY WHICH IS BORNE BY THE PERSONS BENEFITED.

>not applicable if the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future. >The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.

>The evil which brought about the greater evil must not result from a violation of law by the actor.

>It is the duty of peace officers to arrest violators of the law not only when they are provided with the corresponding warrant of arrest but also when they are not provided with warrant of arrest if the violation is committed in their own presence. > But it is not justified when the security guard shot a thief who refused to be arrested because ehe exceeded the fufillment of his duty by shooting the deceased. (PP vs. Bentres 49 OG 4919) >(Art 429 CC)- not necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection. If there is unlawful aggression against the person charged with the protection of the property, then par.1 applies, it being a defense of right to property. >Doctrine of Selp-help (Art. 429 CC) applies in criminal law (PP vs. Depante 58 OG 926)

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