CRIM REV – Article 11 par. 1 to par. 6 4.

Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an

**Starts at p. 168 because first few pages were already recited act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:

Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Exempt from Criminal Liability
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do avoid it;
not incur any criminal liability:
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, of preventing it.
provided that the following circumstances concur:
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
First. Unlawful aggression; lawful exercise of a right or office.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
prevent or repel it; superior for some lawful purpose.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.
PARAGRAPH 1- IN DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON OR RIGHTS
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his (SELF-DEFENSE)
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites What is retaliation? – It is counterattack; the aggression that
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the accused attacked him.
the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part
therein. Is retaliation self-defense? – No, when the injured person
makes a strong retaliation it can amount to unlawful
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a aggression. This makes the person an offender (and it will be
stranger, provided that the first and second requisites considered as a provocation mitigating his liability.)
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present
and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, Is retaliation different from self-defense? - Yes, in
resentment, or other evil motive. retaliation, the aggression already ceased to exist while in self-
defense, the aggression was still existing when the aggressor
was injured by the person making a defense.
 self-defense? – No, in order to constitute an element of self-
Is retaliation a justifying circumstance? – No, because defense, the unlawful aggression must come, directly or
when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has indirectly, from the person who was subsequently attacked by
the right to kill or wound or harm the former aggressor. Self- the accused.
defense does not justify the unnecessary killing of an
aggressor who is retreating from the situation. May a public officer be considered as an unlawful
aggressor? – Yes, when he or she exceeds his or her
Should the attack made by the deceased and the killing of authority
the deceased by the defendant succeed each other
without appreciable interval of time? – Yes, the killing of the What can be considered in order to fail or justify the claim
deceased by the defendant should be simultaneous with the of self-defense? - Nature, character, location, and extent of
attack made by the deceased or at least both are succeeding wound inflicted (to the accused inflicted by the injured party)
each other without appreciable interval of time.
Example for nature/location: Appellant's theory of self-
The deceased drew his revolver and levelled it at the defense is negatived by the nature and location of the victim's
accused who, sensing the danger to his life, sidestepped wounds which, having a right- to-left direction, could not have
and caught the hand of the deceased with his left, thus possibly been inflicted by a right-handed person in front of the
causing the gun to drop to the floor. Immediately, the victim with a two-feet long bolo.
accused drew his knife, opened it and stabbed the
deceased in the abdomen. Did unlawful aggression cease Example for number: In view of the number of wounds of the
when the accused held the right hand of the deceased, deceased, nineteen (19) in number, the plea of self-defense
which carried the gun, the weapon fell to the floor? – No, cannot be seriously entertained.
under such circumstances, the accused could not be expected
to have acted with all the coolness of a person under normal Example for character/location: The accused was the only
condition. At the time of the incident all that he could think right eyewitness to the crime. He admitted that he killed the
now that his life was in danger and that to save himself he had deceased, but advanced the claim that he acted in self-
to do something to stop the aggression. He had no time nor defense. Held: The actual, undisputed, physical facts flatly
occasion for deliberation and think because he needed to act contradict the whole theory of self-defense. The nature,
on the spot. character, location and extent of the wound, as testified to by
the doctor who had examined the wound, clearly show that the
Where must unlawful aggression come from? – From the deceased was struck either from behind or while his body was
person who was attacked by the accused/the attacker. (directly in a reclining position, from which it follows that the accused
or indirectly) did not act in self-defense.

What if the accused was unlawfully attacked and another Does improbability belie the claim of self-defense? – Yes,
person was deceased and not him. Could he consider if the situation was hard to believe that it reached that extent.
For example, an old man with ulcer would press his attack and aggressor. But when the deceased after receiving several
continue hacking the accused after having been seriously wounds, ran away, from that moment there was no longer any
injured and losing his right hand. danger to the life of the accused who, being virtually
unscathed, could have chosen to remain where he was and
If an accused declines to give any statement when he when he pursued the deceased,
surrendered to a policeman, can he still be considered to fatally wounding him upon overtaking him, Alconga was no
act in self-defense? – No, a protestation of innocence or longer acting in self-defense, because the aggression begun
justification is the logical and spontaneous reaction of a man by the deceased ceased from the moment he took to his
who finds himself in such an inculpatory predicament. If he heels.
had done so, that circumstance would have been included in
his confession. He never declared in his confession that he What if the accused flees to go to his car? – No unlawful
acted in self-defense. Had he acted in self-defense, he should aggression if he just drives away. If he pulls out a weapon then
have reported the incident to the police of the three towns, the it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to
poblacion of which he passed when he fled from the scene of take a more advantageous position to insure the success of
the incident. the attack already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is
considered still continuing, and the one making a defense has
Can physical fact determine whether or not the accused a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.
acted in self-defense? – Yes, physical fact or physical
evidence sustained by the court. This may apply in cases Is there unlawful aggression in a concerted fight? – No,
pertaining to nature, character, location, and extent of wound aggression was reciprocal and legitimate as between two
inflicted to the injured party contending parties.

When the aggressor flees, does unlawful aggression still When the accused, pursued by the deceased, reached his
exist and if so, can the one making the defense have the house, he picked up a pestle and, turning towards the
right to pursue to harm the offender? – Both no. When deceased, faced him, saying: "Come on if you are brave,"
unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, and then attacking and killing him. Is there unlawful
because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense aggression in this situation? – No, it was held that the
has no more right to kill or even to wound the former accused did not act in self-defense, for what he did after
aggressor. believing himself to be duly armed, was to agree to the fight.
There is no unlawful aggression in an agreement to fight.
What was the ruling in People v. Alconga? (Gambling went
wrong) - There were two stages in the fight between the If the deceased challenged the accused to a fight and
accused and the deceased. During the first stage of the fight, forthwith rushed towards the latter with a bolo in his hand,
the accused in inflicting several wounds upon the deceased so that the accused had to defend himself by stabbing the
acted in self-defense, because then the deceased, who had deceased with a knife. Is there self-defense in this
attacked the accused with repeated blows, was the unlawful situation? – Yes, because the challenge to fight must be
accepted. The accused, not having accepted the challenge, Can those who voluntarily joined a fight claim self-
acted in self-defense. defense? – No, if the accused voluntarily faced or joined a
fight, the rule is when one agrees to engage in a fight he
What is the reason why there is no unlawful aggression cannot plead self-defense because there is no unlawful
when there is an agreement to fight? - Where the fight is aggression to speak of.
agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once assailant and
assaulted, and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, What is the rule “stand ground when in the right”? - Where
because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not
to arise from one or the other of the combatants. When parties require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing
mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial who attacks or receives upon him with a deadly weapon. The reason for the rule is that
the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the if one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being
fight itself and in no wise is it an unwarranted and unexpected attacked in the back by the aggressor.
aggression which alone can legalize self-defense.
How do you determine the unlawful aggressor in the
absence of direct evidence to determine who provoked
the conflict? - The person who was deeply offended by the
A and B were in the office of a division superintendent of insult was the one who believed he had a right to demand
schools. A and B had an altercation. A grabbed a lead explanation of the perpetrator of that insult, and the one who
paper weight from a table and challenged B to go out, to also struck the first blow when he was not satisfied with the
fight outside the building. A left the office, followed by B. explanation offered.
When they were in front of the table of a clerk, B asked A
to put down the paper weight but instead A grabbed the The circumstance that it was the accused, not the deceased,
neck and collar of the polo shirt of B which was torn. B who had a greater motive for committing the crime on the
boxed A several times. Is there unlawful aggression ground that the deceased had already sufficiently punished the
present in this case? – Yes, where was a mutual agreement accused on account of his misbehavior and because he was
to fight, an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and place publicly humiliated, having gotten the worst of the fight
would be unlawful. The acceptance of the challenge did not between the two inside the theater, leads the court to the
place on the offended party the burden of preparing to meet an conclusion that the claim of self-defense is really untenable.
assault at any time even before reaching the appointed time
and place for the agreed encounter, and any such aggression What about unlawful aggression in defending of other
was patently illegal. rights? –
1. Attempt to rape a woman — defense of right to chastity.
In this case, the aggression made by A which took place Ex: Embracing a woman, touching her private parts and her
before he and B could go out of the building is unlawful, breasts, and throwing her to the ground for the purpose of
notwithstanding their agreement to fight. raping her in an uninhabited place when it was twilight,
constitute an attack upon her honor and, therefore, an unlawful
aggression; Placing of hand by a man on the woman's upper Is there self-defense even if the aggressor used a pistol
thigh is unlawful aggression. provided the accused believed it was a real gun? – Yes,
the striking resemblance to a real one is considered to which
2. Defense of property. – Article 429 of the Civil Code – This is the accused thought was being aimed at him or her. If the gun
the so called “the doctrine of self help” where a person can is another color or different appearance from a real gun then
sort of “take the law into his own hands” in order to protect his person cannot claim self-defense.
property. According to some, our tendency of protecting our
property from others who might want to take it away from us is Is it unlawful aggression to the rights of the picketers if a
a natural law. policeman forcibly pushes picketers to let company
trucks enter the compound? – No, it is not unlawful
Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying aggression against the rights of the picketers. What was under
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the attack by said security officer was not the right of picketing, but
person of one entrusted with said property. the picketers' act of remaining in the passageway when the
trucks wanted to get inside, which is not a part of the picketing
Example: People v. Apolinar (OA Palay Guy) (p. 169) protected by law.

3. Defense of home - A man’s house is his castle. When a Is mere threatening attitude or threat to inflict injury an
person is attacked in his own house, he has a right to protect unlawful aggression? – No, a mere threatening or
it, and those within it, from the intrusion or attack. intimidating attitude, not preceded by an outward and material
aggression, is not unlawful aggression, because it is required
Ex: Violent entry to another's house at nighttime, by a person that the act be offensive and positively strong, showing the
who is armed with a bolo, and forcing his way into the house, wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.
shows he was ready and looking for trouble, and the manner
of his entry constitutes an act of aggression. The owner of the Examples of threats to inflict real injury:
house need not wait for a blow before repelling the 1. When one aims a revolver at another with the intention of
aggression, as that blow may prove fatal. shooting him.
2. The act of a person in retreating two steps and placing his
Should circumstances as the accused perceived by them hand in his pocket with a motion indicating his purpose to
at the time of the incident be considered in determining commit an assault with a weapon.
the existence of unlawful aggression? – Yes, in self- 3. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as if to
defense and defense of stranger, the circumstances as the make an attack.
accused perceived them at the time of the incident, not as
others perceived them, should be the bases for determining Note that in the above cases, the threatening attitude of the
the merits of the plea aggressor is offensive and positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the aggressor to cause an injury.
Is picking up a weapon sufficient to determine unlawful
aggression and to say that there is intent to attack is In stating the second requisite, two phrases are used, namely:
manifest? - When the picking up of a weapon is preceded by (1) "to prevent" and (2) "to repel."
circumstances indicating the intention of the deceased to use it
in attacking the defendant, such act is considered unlawful In making a defense, we prevent the aggression that places us
aggression. in imminent danger or repel the aggression that places us in
actual danger.
What if the accused uses imaginary aggression? Will he
claim self-defense? – No, aggression must be real, not A threat to inflict real injury and an actual physical assault
merely imaginary. The aggression must be real or at least places us in actual danger.
imminent.
The second requisite of defense means that (1) there be a
Example of someone who had imaginary aggression: When A necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a
went to the house of B and saw B holding a knife in the defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the means used. Both
kitchen. A shot B because A imagined a possible aggression must be reasonable.
considering B’s violent temper, and that he is quarrelsome,
and irritable. The reasonableness of either or both such necessity depends
on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature
Is aggression considered to be real if it is expected? – and extent of the aggression.
Yes, provided it is imminent. In this case, it is not necessary to
wait until the blow is about to be discharged, because in order “The necessity to take a course of action and to use a
that the assault may be prevented it is not necessary that it means of defense” - The person attacked is not duty-bound
has been actually perpetrated. (example: picking up a to expose himself to be wounded or killed, and while the
weapon) 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
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED he may not continue the assault.
TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT
What is the Doctrine of Rational Equivalence? – it is
What is the second requisite of defense of person or consideration of which will enter as principal factors the
right? - Reasonable necessity of the means employed to emergency, the imminent danger to which the person is
prevent or repel it. exposed to, and the instinct more than the reason and its
proportinateness does not depend upon the harm done, but
This second requisite of defense presupposes the existence of rests upon the imminent danger of such injury; perfect equality
unlawful aggression (imminent – to prevent or actual – to (old man v. teenager)
repel.)
“Necessity of the course of action taken” – This depends defense were still present, cannot and should not affect the
on the existence of unlawful aggression. If there was no benefit of said complete self-defense in the absence of proof
unlawful aggression or, if there was, it has ceased to exist, that small wounds contributed to or hastened the death of the
there would be no necessity for any course of action to take as deceased.
there is nothing to prevent or to repel.
This ruling should not be applied if the deceased, after
In determining the existence of unlawful aggression that receiving minor wounds, dropped his weapon and signified his
induced a person to take a course of action, the place and refusal to fight any longer, but the accused hacked him to
occasion of the assault and the other circumstances must be death. The reason is that the wound inflicted, after the
considered. aggression had ceased, was the cause of death.

When is there no necessity of the course of action taken? Is the person defending expected to control his blow? -
– When there is no unlawful aggression present or when the No, although it does not necessarily mean the killing of the
danger or risk on his part has disappeared. Also when there aggressor. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be
was no any real danger to a person’s life present. justified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time
when the elements of complete self- defense are still present.
When the aggressor is disarmed and the victim is In the heat of an encounter at close quarters, person is not in a
seriously wounded is there reasonable necessity for the position to reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine
victim to attack the aggressor? – Yes, because he was the effects.
already losing strength due to loss of blood and to throw away
the bolo would only give her a chance to pick it up and again “Necessity of the means used” - The means employed by
use it against him. the person making a defense must be rationally necessary to
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
But when the defendant, who had been attacked by the
deceased, succeeded in snatching the bolo away from the What are cases where there is no rational necessity to
latter, and the deceased already manifested a refusal to fight, employ the means used? –
the defendant was not justified in killing him. - A sleeping woman, who was awakened by her brother- in-law
grasping her arm, was not justified in using a knife to kill him
When only minor physical injuries are inflicted after as the latter did not perform any other act which could be
unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, there is still self- construed as an attempt against her honor.
defense if mortal wounds were inflicted at the time the - When a person was attacked with fist blows only, there was
requisites of self-defense were present. - The fact that no reasonable necessity to inflict upon the assailant a mortal
minor physical injuries were inflicted by the accused after the wound with a dagger. There was in this case a reasonable
unlawful aggression had ceased and after he had stabbed the necessity to act by using fist blows also. But there was no
deceased with two mortal wounds, said mortal wounds having necessity to employ a dagger to repel such an aggression.
been inflicted at a time when the requisites of complete self-
- When a man placed his hand on the upper thigh of a woman  Use of firearm against a dagger or a knife – It must be
seated on a bench in a chapel where there were many people shown that the use of firearm was the only recourse of
and which was well-lighted, there w a s no reasonable defense to repel attacks from knife or bolo
necessity to kill him with a knife because there was no danger  Use of pocket knife against a cane – cane may also be
to her chastity or honor because of the location of the incident a deadly weapon
and the location of the wound.  Gun against a bolo – reasonable if the aggressor
holding the cane was advancing upon the other and
What is the test of reasonableness of the means used? – within a few feet of striking distance when the
Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will aggressor was shot
depend upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the  Bolo or knife against a stick – it is reasonable under
aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances but the use of a bayonet against a cane
circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and is unreasonable.
also the place and occasion of  Fists v. fists – same size and strength of person to be
the assault. justified

Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one Example for physical condition, character, and size
defending himself and that of the aggressor is not required,  A middle aged man defending himself with a knife
because the person assaulted does not have sufficient is justified when he is against 3 or 4 men bigger
tranquility of mind to think, to calculate and to choose which and stronger punching him with fists
weapon to use.  The aggressor was a bully, a man larger and
stronger, of known violent character, with previous
What will the reasonableness of the means employed criminal records for assault. Killing him with a bolo
depend upon? – is justified even after he was given a warning.
Nature and quality of the weapons, physical condition,  The aggressor provoked the incident; violent,
character and size, other circumstances considered tempemental and troublesome; he wanted to take
the will on the family of the accused but was
Person assaulted must show: (1) no other available means; (2) rejected; boxing accused one after another; striking
if there were other means, could choose the less deadly him with a bolo is justified.
weapon cooly
Is reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or
Example for nature and quality of the weapons: repel unlawful aggression liberally construed in favor of
 The use of a knife or dagger being attacked by a club - law- abiding citizens? – Yes, when a lawless person attacks
must be deemed reason- able if it cannot be shown on the streets or particularly in the victim's home, he should
that the person assaulted (1) had other available assume the risk of losing his life from the act of self-defense
means or (2) if there was other means, he could coolly by firearm of his victim; otherwise, the law abiding citizens will
choose the less deadly weapon to repel the assault be at the mercy of the lawless elements.
What is the rule when the reasonableness of the In what cases where third requisite of self-defense is
"necessity of the means employed" is by a peace officer considered present? –
who is defending himself? - a policeman, who was armed - No provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the
with a revolver and a club, might have used his club instead, person defending himself
does not alter the principle since a policeman's club is not a - If provocation was given, it wasn’t sufficient
very effective weapon as against a drawn knife and a police - If provocation was given and sufficient but it was not given by
officer is not required to afford a person attacking him, the the person defending himself
opportunity for a fair and equal struggle. - Provocation was given by the person defending himself but it
was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression
While the law on self-defense allows a private individual to
prevent or repel an aggression, the duty of a peace officer Example when there is no provocation at all – If A was
requires him to overcome his opponent. The peace officer, in running towards B with a knife intending to stab him. A shoots
the performance of his duty, represents the law which he must B to death. There was no provocation on A’s part so the third
uphold. requisite of self-defense was present.

What are the first 2 requisites common to 3 kinds of Example for insufficient provocation – A saw that B built a
legitimate defense? - The first two requisites are common to part of his fence on A’s land so A asked why he had done so to
self- defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger. which angered B and immediately attacked A. A killed B to
These three kinds of legitimate defense differ only in the third defend himself. The third requisite of self-defense would still
requisite. be present. Even if it is true that A angered B which caused B
to attack A it is considered a provocation that is not sufficient.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF This is because the exercise of a right cannot give rise to
THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF sufficient provocation. A had the right to demand explanation
why B built the fence on his property.
What is the third requisite of defense? - "Lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself." How do we determine the sufficiency of provocation? – It
should proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to
What is the reason behind this third requisite? - When the stir the aggressor to its commission.
person defending himself from the attack by another gave
sufficient provocation to the latter, the former is also to be If one engages in verbal argument, is it considered
blamed for having given cause for the aggression. sufficient provocation? – No, unless it involves hurling
To be entitled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of insults and vulgar language
self-defense, the one defending himself must not have given
cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or Is it necessary for the provocation to be sufficient that the
provoking the assailant. one who gave it must have been guilty of using violence
and thus becoming an unlawful aggressor himself? - No, it FACTS: Cuniganda Boholst (A) and Francisco Caballero (B)
is not necessary. were married One night A unexpectedly met B past midnight
while walking. B suspected A was outside for a bad purpose
Example of cases or situations where there is sufficient like with another guy out of jealousy or prostituting. B held A by
provocation: the collar of her dress and questioned her harshly where she
- When A challenges B to a fist fight had been and if she was out prostituting. B started slapping
- When A provokes B through hurling insults at him or through her until her nose bled, pulling her hair, and pushed her down
vulgar language to the ground and strangled her. Because she “had no other
- When A forcibly kissed B’s sister which caused A to attack B. recourse” she pulled out the knife of her husband and stabbed
A cannot claim self-defense because the third requisite is him which killed him in the process.
present.
HELD: Court held that all elements of self-defense were
Is it required that sufficient provocation is given by the present in this case.
person defending himself? – Yes, it is written specifically in (1) Unlawful aggression – A was kneeling over her as she B
Article 11 was laying on her back while on the ground being strangled by
paragraph 1 that the third requisite of “lack of sufficient B
provocation” refers exclusively to “the part of the person (2) Reasonable Necessity of means employed to prevent or
defending himself”. So if the accused appears to be the repel it – A women who was almost unconscious from the
aggressor, it cannot be said that he was defending himself strangling of a bigger and stronger person had no other
from the effect of another's aggression. recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her reach to
save herself. This requisite does not depend upon the harm
Can provocation be considered even if the aggression done but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury
happens days after? – No, the provocation by the person (3) Lack of Sufficient Provocation – A did not give sufficient
defending himself must be proximate and immediate to the provocation. Although it was understandable for the B to be
aggression. So if the provocation took place December 26 and angry at his wife to find her outside in the middle of the night
the aggression happened on December 28, the provocation without knowing where she has been but this does not justify
will be disregarded by the SC inflicting bodily harm with an intent to kill.

Hours after is not counted. (All she did was to provoke an imaginary commission of a
wrong in the mind of her husband, which is not sufficient
EXAMPLE WHERE IT ILLUSTRATES ALL THREE provocation under the law)
REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE.
(p. 188 pdf different case) Is flight or fleeing after the commission of a crime
compatible with self-defense? – No, after one goes into
People v. Boholst-Caballero hiding after an incident or flight after the commission of a crime
is highly evidentiary of guilt
Can Battered Woman Syndrome be used as a defense? - First phase: The Tension-Building Phase - there is minor
Under Rep. Act No. 9262 otherwise known as “Anti-Violence battering that starts to occur; could be verbal or slight physical
Against Women and their Children Act of 2004” this can be abuse or another form of hostile behavior; woman can still try
used as a defense for victim-survivors who are found by the to pacify the man at this stage through showing a kind,
courts to suffer from battered woman syndrome. They will not nurturing behavior.
incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self- Second phase: Acute Battering Phase – enters here are
defense under the Revised Penal Code. destructiveness, brutality, and even death and the injuries are
no longer minor; this is deemed as unpredictable yet also
What is the Battered Woman Syndrome? inevitable; during this phase she has not control unlike the first
A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is phase so only the batterer can put an end to the violence
repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological because she knows she cannot reason with him
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he
wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered Third phase: Tranquil, Loving Phase – the couple experiences
women include wives or women in any form of intimate profound relief; the batterer shows a nurturing behavior and he
relationship with men. knows he has been cruel and tries to make up for it by begging
for forgiveness and making promises to never do it again;
How can a woman be classified as a battered woman? - while the battered woman also tries to convince herself that
The couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice. the battery happened will never happen again and that her
Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a partner will change and that he is still the “good and caring”
man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the man she knows.
situation, she is defined as a battered woman.
What is the effect of battery on the appellant? – She
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as believes she is somehow responsible for the violent behavior
low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family of her partner; she also believes he is capable of killing her
and the female sex role; emotional dependence upon the and that there is no escape. Battered women feel unsafe,
dominant male; the tendency to accept responsibility for the suffer from anxiety, and usually fail to leave the relationship.
batterer's actions; and false hopes that the relationship will She also fears that if she leaves, she would be found and hurt
improve. even more.

What is the “cycle of violence” or the “battering cycle” which

must be gone through twice? – The battered woman syndrome
is characterized by the “cycle of violence” which has 3 phases:
the tension-building phase, the acute battering incident phase,
and the tranquil, loving phase.
PARAGRAPH 2 – DEFENSE OF RELATIVES A is married to B, C is the sister of B and C is married to
D. A acted in defense of D. Is this counted as defense of
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his relative? – No, the relation between A and D is not one of
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural those mentioned in Art. 11, par. 2. D is a stranger and falls
or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by under defense of stranger in Art. 11.
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and What is the basis of justification of defense of relatives? –
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding By reason of which the defender is not criminally liable is if
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in founded upon humanitarian sentiment and impulse of blood
case the provocation was given by the person attacked, which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to
that the one making defense had no part therein. the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood.

What are the requisites of defense of relatives? – What is the most essential and primary requisite? –
(1) Unlawful aggression Unlawful aggression is required, without which any defense is
(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent not possible or justified.
or repel it; and
(3) In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, When 2 persons are getting ready to strike each other and
the one making a defense had no part therein a relative of either butts in and administers a deadly blow
on the other to prevent his from harm, is this considered
Who are the relatives that can be defended? – Spouse, as defense of relative? –
Ascendants, Descendants, Legitimate, natural, or adopted No, when he saw the aggressor and his relative facing each
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same other in a fight, each holding a weapon, if the relative
degrees, relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree. interferes and hits aggressor on the head which causes his
death, that relative will appear to be the aggressor, he cannot
Who are considered relatives by affinity? – Those who invoke the defense of having acted in defense of a relative.
became relatives because of marriage. Parents-in-law, son or
daughter-in-law, brother or sister-in-law. Must unlawful aggression exist as a matter of fact, or can
it be made to depend upon the honest belief of the one
What terminates relationship by affinity? - Death of the making a defense? –
spouse Yes, it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of the
one making a defense.
Who are considered relatives by consanguinity? – This
refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters (2nd civil degree), If for example, if A attacked B and later B had the upper hand
Uncle and aunt and niece and nephew (3rd civil degree), first about to strike A but was interfered by A’s sons believing in
cousins (4th civil degree) good faith that A was the victim, killing B would be justified.
There is mistake of fact on the part of A’s sons.
 The accused was previously shot by the brother of the victim.
Another example is if A walking in the middle of the night in an It cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking the victim, the
uninhabited place was ordered by a stranger to give him accused was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or
money. A would be justified in wounding or shooting the the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on
stranger even if he turned out to be a friend who was just his cousin. Rather, he was motivated by revenge, resentment
joking around. or evil motive because of a running feud between them.

What is the gauge of reasonable necessity of the means If A slapped B which resulted to B drawing out a knife to
employed to repel the aggression? – It is to be found in the retaliate and try to stab A, and C, the father of A, killed B in
situation as it appears to the person repelling the aggression. defense of his son. Is C justified? - Yes, notwithstanding that
It has been held time and again that the reasonableness of the the provocation was given by A, his son because the fact that
means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.
"mate- rial commensurability between the means of attack and
defense" but the imminent danger against the subject of the But is C induces A to injure B and takes part in the provocation
attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct more than made by A, C is not justified in killing B because the third
reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. requisite of defense of relative is lacking.

What is the third requisite of defense of relative? - The Suppose, the person defending his relative was also induced
clause, "in case the provocation was given by the person by revenge or hatred, would there be a legitimate defense of
attacked," used in stating the third requisite of defense of relative? - As long as the three requisites of defense of
relatives, does not mean that the relative defended should give relatives are present, it will still be a legitimate defense.
provocation to the aggressor. The clause merely states an
event which may or may not take place. Examples of defense of relatives:
- A is married to B and C is their neighbor. A suddenly shouts
What does the “in case” part mean? – “in the event that” for help to which B rushes to. B sees C forcibly abusing his
There is still a legitimate defense of relative even if the relative wife while he is on top of her. It is justified if B kills C.
being defended has given provocation, provided that the one - A challenges B to a fight to prove who is the better man. B
defending such relative has no part in the provocation. picks up a bolo and went after A who runs away. B caught up
to A and inflicted wounds on him. C is the father of A and
What is the reason for this rule in the third requisite? - rushed to his son’s assistance by striking B with a cane which
That although the provocation prejudices the person who gave causes the bolo to fall from B’s hands. A inflicted fatal wounds
it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part on B. While the son was originally at fault for giving
therein, be- cause the latter was prompted by some noble or provocation to the B, yet C was justified in disarming the
generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative. deceased, having acted in lawful defense of his son. But A was
declared guilty of the crime of homicide.
What is an example if the third requisite is lacking? -
 a standing grudge against the assailant, if he enters upon the
PARAGRAPH 3 – IN DEFENSE OF STRANGERS defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger from serious bodily harm or possible death, the third
stranger, provided that the first and second requisites requisite of defense of stranger still exists.
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are
present and that the person defending be not induced by When will the third requisite be lacking? – If such person
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because
the alleged defense of the stranger would be only a pretext.
What are the requisites of defense of a stranger? – For example, if in defending his wife's brother-in-law, the
1. Unlawful aggression; accused acted also from an impulse of resentment against the
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or deceased, the third requisite of defense of stranger is not
repel it; and present.
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive. Examples of defense of stranger:
- A heard screams and cries for help. When A responded, he
What is the basis of defense of stranger? - What one may saw B attacking his (B's) wife with a dagger. A approached B
do in his defense, another may do for him. Persons acting in and struggled for the possession of the weapon, in the course
defense of others are in the same condition and upon the of which A inflicted wounds on B.
same plane as those who act in defense of themselves. The Held: A acted in defense of a stranger.
ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion - B ordered C, a constabulary soldier under his command, to
killed without attempting to save his life. search A for the pistol. When C was about to approach A to
search him, the latter stepped back and shot at C who was
What is the third requisite of defense of stranger able to avoid the shot. When A was about to fire again at C, D,
requiring? - This Code requires that the defense of a stranger another constabulary soldier, fired at A with his rifle which
be actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, when it killed him.
puts down "revenge, resentment, or other evil motive" as Held: D was justified in killing A, having acted in defense of
illegitimate. stranger.

Who are deemed strangers? - Any person not included in the Is it justified when a person furnishes a weapon to
enumeration of relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this another who is in serious danger of being throttled? – Yes,
article, is considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. it is in defense of stranger. (The accused was justified in
Hence, even a close friend or a distant relative is a stranger furnishing the old man with the gaff, it being in defense of
within the meaning of paragraph 3. stranger.)

“The person defending be not induced” - Paragraph 3 of

Art. 11 uses the phrase "be not induced." Even if a person has
PARAGRAPH 4 – AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR Should the greater evil be brought about by the
INJURY negligence or imprudence of the actor? – No, so in a
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does situation where the driver drove his car at full speed,
an act which causes damage to another, provided that the disregarding the condition of the place, and although he saw
following requisites are present: the "six by six" truck at a distance 500 meters away, he did not
slacken his speed, he cannot invoke paragraph 4 of this
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; article, because the state of necessity was brought about by
his own reckless imprudence.
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it; If the accused was not avoiding any evil, can he invoke
the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means or injury? - No
of preventing it. Pio with a bolo and Severo with an axe attacked Geminiano
who was wounded. Nearby, Juan embraced Marianito,
“Damage to another” - Geminiano's son, who had a gun slung on his shoulder, and
- This term covers injury to persons and damage to property. grappled with him. Geminiano died. Pio, Severo and Juan
- According to jurisprudence, CA has applied this paragraph were prosecuted for murder. Juan invoked the justifying
before in a case involving slander by deed, a crime against circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury (Par. 4,
honor. This involved the accused who was about to be married Article 11, R.P.C.) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito
to the offended party who eloped with another man. from shooting Pio and Severo.

“That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists." - Held: His reliance on that justifying circumstance is erroneous.
The evil must actually exist. If the evil sought to be avoided is The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from
merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who were the
paragraph 4 of Art. 11 is not applicable. aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de
Leon without any risk to his assailants. Juan Padernal was not
"That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
it." -
Note: Even if Marianito was about to shoot Pio and Severo, his
Does the foregoing example violate the second condition act, being in defense ofhis father, is not an evil that could
required by the Code, that is, that the injury feared be justifiably be avoided by disabling Marianito.
greater than that done
to avoid it? - No, because the instinct of self-preservation will Examples of damage to property under paragraph 4
always make one feel that his own safety is of greater - Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa houses, and in order to
importance than that of another. prevent its spread to adjacent houses of strong materials, the
surrounding nipa houses are pulled down
- Where a truck of the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. delivering liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
gasoline at a gas station caught fire and, in order to prevent received. (Art. 101)
the burning of the station, the truck was driven to the middle of
the street and there abandoned, but it continued to move and PARAGRAPH 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL
thereafter crashed against and burned a house on the other EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
side of the street, the owner of the house had a cause of Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
action against the owner of the gas station lawful exercise of a right or office.
- During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded with
goods was in danger of sinking. The captain of the vessel What are the requisites for Art. 11 par. 5?
ordered part of the goods thrown overboard. In this case, the 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in
captain is not criminally liable for causing part of the goods the lawful exercise of a right or office
thrown overboard. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the
Example of injury to person under paragraph 4 - A person lawful exercise of such right or office.
was driving his car on a narrow road with due diligence and
care when suddenly he saw a "six by six" truck in front of his If 1 out of 2 requisites is not present then they cannot apply
car. He was forced to choose between losing his life in the this paragraph
precipice or sacrificing the life of the innocent bystander. He
chose the latter, swerved his car to the right, ran over and Can the case of People v. Oanis apply par. 5?
killed the passerby. In view of this example and the principle In the case of People vs. Oanis, supra, the first requisite is
involved, the killing of the foetus to save the life of the mother present, because the accused peace officers, who were trying
may be held excusable. to get a wanted criminal, were acting in the performance of a
duty.
Can the evil which brought about the greater evil result
from a violation of law by the actor? - No, in a case where The second requisite is not present, because through
an escaped convict who has to steal clothes in order to move impatience, over-anxiety, or in their desire to take no chances,
about unrecognized, does not act from necessity. He is liable the accused exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty when they
for theft of the clothes. killed a sleeping person whom they believed to be the wanted
criminal without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.
Is there civil liability under this paragraph? – Yes, although,
as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it People v. Felipe Delima
is only in paragraph 4 of Art. 11 where there is civil liability, but FACTS:
the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited. - Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail where he was serving
sentence.
In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons - Felipe Delima, a policeman who was looking for him, found
for whose benefit the harm has been prevented, shall be civilly him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece
of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and demanded his Does the Delima case apply to a case where an escaping
surrender. detainee charged with a relatively minor offense of
- The fugitive answered with a stroke of his lance. The stealing a chicken was shot to death by a policeman? –
policeman dodged it, and to impose his authority fired his Yes, he gave warning shots and detainee even harmed other
revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. policemen in pursuit of him
- The criminal ran away with his weapon, Delima went after
him and fired his revolver again, this time hitting Napilon. Is an officer’s actions justified if he shoots an offender
- The policeman was tried and convicted by the Court of First refusing to surrender? – Yes, the reason for this is that it is
Instance of homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the duty of peace officers to arrest violators of the law not only
the accessory penalties. when they are provided with the corresponding warrant of
arrest but also when they are not provided with said warrant if
HELD: the violation is committed in their own presence; and this duty
The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The extends even to cases the purpose of which is merely to
deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and had no prevent a crime about to be consummated.
right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault
and disobedience with a weapon in his hand, which compelled Is an officer’s actions to shoot a thief justified? – No,
the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which, In the case of People vs. Oanis, supra, it was held that
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using
circumstances. such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
Article 8, No. 11 of the Penal Code (Art. 11, par. 5, Revised recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily
Penal Code) being considered, Felipe Delima committed no harm, yet he is never justified in using unnecessary force or in
crime, and he is treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous
hereby acquitted with costs de oficio means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.

Does the ruling in the case mentioned apply to the case of The doctrine is restated in the Rules of Court thus: "No
a guard who killed a detained prisoner while escaping? – violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an
Yes, If a detained prisoner under the custody of the accused, a arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any
policeman detailed to guard him, by means of force and greater restraint than is necessary for his detention."
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 What is an example of legitimate performance of duty?
to acquittal in accordance with the ruling laid down in People When the victim without apparent reason, but probably due to
vs. Delima drunkenness, fired his gun several times at the Alta Vista Club,
the accused and his partner had to intervene for they were
with the NBI. They would have been remiss in their duty if they
did not. True, the deceased companion of the accused shot Fulfillment of duty to prevent the escape of a prisoner is
the victim who died as a result. But it would be doing injustice different from self-defense, because they are based on
to a deceased agent of the law who cannot now defend different principles.
himself to state that when he approached the trouble making
victim he had a preconceived notion to kill. It must be In the case of People us. Delima, supra, the prisoner who
presumed that he acted pursuant to law when he tried to attacked the policeman with "a stroke of his lance" was already
discharge his duty as an NBI agent and that the killing of the running away when he was shot, and, hence, the unlawful
victim was justified under the circumstances. The same is true aggression had already ceased to exist; but the killing was
for the accused. done in the performance of a duty. The rule of self-defense
does not apply.
What is an example of illegal performance of duty?
The defense of fulfillment of a duty does not avail. The attitude The public officer acting in the fulfillment of a duty may appear
adopted by the deceased in putting his hands in his pocket is to be an aggressor but his aggression is not unlawful, it being
not sufficient to justify the accused to shoot him. The deceased necessary to fulfill his duty.
was unarmed and the accused could have first warned him, as
the latter was coming towards him, to stop where he was, Thus, when the guard levelled his gun at the escaping prisoner
raise his hands, or do the things a policeman is trained to do, and the prisoner grabbed the muzzle of the gun and, in the
instead of mercilessly shooting him upon a mere suspicion that struggle for the possession of the gun, the guard jerked away
the deceased was armed. the gun from the hold of the prisoner, causing the latter to be
thrown halfway around, and because of the force of the pull,
We find the requisites absent in the case at bar. Appellant was the guard's finger squeezed the trigger, causing it to fire, hitting
not in the performance of his duties at the time of the shooting and killing the prisoner, the guard was acting in the fulfillment
for the reason that the girls he was attempting to arrest were of duty.
not committing any act of prostitution in his presence. If at all,
the only person he was authorized to arrest during that time If the accused were a private person, not in the performance of
was Roberto Reyes, who offered him the services of a a duty, the result would be different. In the first case, there
prostitute, for acts of vagrancy. Even then, the fatal injuries would be no self-defense because there is no unlawful
that the appellant caused the victim were not a necessary aggression. In the second case, the one pointing the gun at
consequence of appelant's performance of his duty as a police another would be committing a felony. (grave threat under Art.
officer. The record shows that appellant shot the victim not 282)
once but twice after a heated confrontation ensued between
them. His duty to arrest the female suspects did not include For instance, A levelled his gun at B, threatening the latter with
any right to shoot the victim to death. death. B grabbed the muzzle of the gun and in the struggle for
the possession of the gun, A squeezed the trigger causing it to
***Distinguished from self-defense and from consequence fire, hitting and killing B. In this case, A is criminally liable
of felonious act (connected to delima case) under Art. 4, par. 1, in relation to Art. 282 and Art. 249.
 In the case mentioned, was act of Paciencia in grabbing
Under this paragraph is it lawful exercise of right or the five-peso bill an actual or threatened unlawful physical
office? – Of right invasion or usurpation of Mariano Depante's property? –
Under the Civil Code (Art. 429), the owner or lawful possessor The court held that it was. More than that, the act could be
of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the attempted robbery. The fact that Paciencia was a querida and
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use that Mariano had not supported her for sometime was not an
such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or exempting or justifying circumstance. Robbery can even be
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or committed by a wife against her husband. Only theft, swindling
usurpation of his property. and malicious mishief can- not be committed by a wife against
her husband. (Art. 332, Revised Penal Code)
If in protecting his possession of the property he injured (not
seriously) the one trying to get it from him, he is justified under In the case mentioned, did Mariano use such force as was
this paragraph. reasonably necessary to repel or prevent the actual or
Under this paragraph (lawful exercise of a right), it is not threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
necessary that there be unlawful aggression against the property? - On this point, we find that he cannot claim full
person charged with the protection of the property. If there is justification, for the three fist blows which rendered Paciencia
unlawful aggression against the person charged with the unconscious for some time were not reasonable, considering
protection of the property, then paragraph 1 of Art. 11 applies, the sex of the complainant. Hence, appellant is criminally
it being a defense of right to property. liable. However, his criminal liability may be mitigated under
Article 69 of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Depante (doctrine of self-help)
FACTS: Can actual invasion of property consist of a mere
- Mariano Depante was in a Chinese store, his mistress saw disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession? –
him holding a five-peso bill in his left hand If it is mere disturbance of possession, force may be used
- His mistress was angry that Mariano has not given her against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the
support for sometime and grabbed the bill from his hand prescriptive period for an action of forcible entry. Thus, if a
- When he tried to take back the money from her, she grabbed ditch is opened by Pedro in the land of Juan, the latter may
his shirt and tore it. Mariano gave her blows to the face, head close it or cover it by force at any time.
and arm knocking her down in the process.
- He regained his money from his mistress If the invasion, however, consists of a real dispossession,
force to regain possession can be used only immediately after
HELD: The requisites mentioned in Art. 429, Civil Code, in the dispossession. Thus, if Juan, without the permission of
relation to Art. 11, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code, to justify Pedro, picks up a book belonging to the latter and runs off with
the act not being all present, a penalty lower by one or two it, Pedro can pursue Juan and recover the book by force.
degrees than that prescribed by law may be imposed.
If the property is immovable, there should be no delay in the order is lawful.
use of force to recover it; a delay, even if excusable, such as
when due to the ignorance of the dispossession, will bar the Both the person who gives the order and the person who
right to the use of force. Once the usurper's possession has executes it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by
become firm by the lapse of time, the lawful possessor must law.
resort to the competent authority to recover his property.
What do you mean by lawful purpose? – It must be in
accordance with the law
Relating the previous question to lawful exercise of right,
give an example – Example of an instance in the absence of the 3rd requisite
The exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment pay- The court ordered that the convict should be executed on a
ments under Section 23 of P.D. 957 is a valid defense against certain date. The executioner put him to death on a day earlier
the purported violations of B.P. Big. 22 that petitioner is than the date fixed by the court.
charged with. Petitioner's exercise of the right of a buyer under The execution of the convict, although by virtue of a lawful
Article 23 of P .D. No. 957 is a valid defense to the charges order of the court, was carried out against the provision of Art.
against him. 82. The executioner is guilty of murder.

Relating the previous question to lawful exercise of office, When the order is not for lawful purpose, is the
give an example – subordinate who obeyed it liable?
The executioner of the Bilibid Prison cannot be held liable for (1) One who prepared a falsified document with full knowledge
murder for the execution performed by him because he was of its falsity is not excused even if he merely acted in
merely acting in the lawful exercise of his office. (Guevara) obedience to the instruction of his superior, because the
instruction was not for a lawful purpose.
A surgeon who amputated the leg of a patient to save him from
gangrene is not liable for the crime of mutilation, because he (2) A soldier who, in obedience to the order of his sergeant,
was acting in the lawful exercise of his office. tortured to death the deceased for bringing a kind of fish
different from that he had been asked to furnish a constabulary
PARAGRAPH 6 - OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR detachment, is criminally liable. Obedience to an order of a
SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE superior is justified only when the order is for some lawful
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a purpose. The order to torture the deceased was illegal, and the
superior for some lawful purpose. accused was not bound to obey it.

What are the requisites for paragraph 6? If a subordinate carried out an illegal order of his superior,
1. That an order has been issued by a superior. will he be negligent or liable even if he is not aware of the
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose. illegality of the order? - Subordinate is not liable nor
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said negligent. When the accused acted upon orders of superior
officers, which he, as military subordinate, could not question, 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
and obeyed the orders in good faith, without being aware of care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
their illegality, without any fault or negligence on his part, he is intention of causing it.
not liable because he had no criminal intent and he was not
negligent. 5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force.
Exempting Circumstances
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable
ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal fear of an equal or greater injury.
Liability. — The following are exempt from criminal liability:
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
during a lucid interval.

When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act Is there criminal liability when a crime is committed with
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order exempting circumstances? – There is a crime committed but
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established there is no criminal liability because there is complete absence
for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. voluntariness of the act, so there is no criminal liability that will
arise.
2. A person under nine years of age.
Must there be burden of proof shown in exempting
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he circumstances? – Yes, any of the circumstances mentioned
has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall in Art. 12 is a matter of defense and the same must be proved
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
article 80 of this Code.
PARAGRAPH 1 - An imbecile or an insane person, unless
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
the court, in conformity with the provisions of this and the
preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and What is the basis of paragraph 1? - The exempting
custody of his family who shall be charged with his circumstance of insanity or imbecility is based on the complete
surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness.
to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said
article 80. Imbecility vs Insanity – Imbecile is exempt in all cases from
criminal liability, the insane is not exempt if it can be shown
that he acted lucid interval.
 Sanity being the normal condition of the human mind, the
What is a lucid interval? – during lucid interval, the insane prosecution may proceed upon the presumption that the
acts with intelligence accused was sane and responsible when the act was
committed.
What is an imbecile? - is one who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to that of children How much evidence is necessary to overthrow the
between two and seven years of age. presumption of sanity? – In order to ascertain a person's
mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to
What is an imbecile within the meaning of Art. 12? - one receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a
who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and reasonable period both before and after that time.
freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.

What constitutes insanity? - there must be complete Is direct testimony required? – No, nor are specific acts of
deprivation of intelligence while committing the act or that the derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense.
accused be a total deprivation of the freedom of the will Mind can be known only by outward acts. Thereby, we read
the thoughts, the motives and
Is mere abnormalities enough to constitute insanity? – no emotions of a person and come to determine whether his acts
especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind.
(at most it is a mitigating circumstance)
Insanity at the time of the commission of the felony vs
What is the procedure when the imbecile or the insane Insanity at the time of the trial -
commits a felony? - The court shall order his confinement in When a person was insane at the time of the commission of
one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons the felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first
obtaining the permission of the court. When he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime,
but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is liable
Does the court have the power to permit the insane criminally.
person to leave the hospital or asylum? – Not without first
obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be The trial, however, will be suspended until the mental capacity
released without danger. of the accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.

Who has the burden to show proof of insanity? - The What can be counted as evidence of insanity? -
defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of The evidence of insanity must refer to the time before the act
the commission of the crime under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution.
(Because the presumption is always in favor of sanity)
If the evidence points to insanity following the commission of Is schizophrenia, formally called dementia praecox,
the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted. He is presumed to covered by the term insanity? – Yes, when a person is
be sane when he committed it. suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia
praecox, homicidal attack is common, because of delusions.
Does presumption of insanity still arise if the insanity is During the period of excitement, such person has no control
only occasional or intermittent? – No, if the insanity is only whatever of his acts.
occasional or intermittent in its nature, the presumption of its
continuance does not arise. He who relies on such insanity The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental
proved at another time must prove its existence also at the disease or a mental defect, producing an "irresistible impulse,"
time of the commission of the offense. as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power
of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from
Where it is shown that the defendant had lucid intervals, it will doing the act.
be presumed that the offense was committed in one of them.
But a person who has been adjudged insane, or who has been What is schizophrenia? – It is described as a chronic mental
committed to a hospital or to an asylum for the insane, is disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between
presumed to continue to be insane. fantasy and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations
and delusions. It is the most common form of psychosis.
Schizophrenic reactions are recognizable through odd and
When is the defense of insanity not credible? – bizarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of impulsive
- if the appellant is able to recall everything that happened in destructiveness and immature and exaggerated emotionality.
detail or most of what happened during the incident The interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the more
- when the appellant, after the commission of the crime, shows serious states by delusions and hallucinations.
coherence and intelligence and shows that before the incident
was able to work consistently such as 3x a week If the accused appears to have been suffering from
- when doctors or professionals don’t observe or manifest odd kleptomania when he committed the crime of theft, how
behavior for a long time (a month and a half) and if appellant shall we regard his abnormal, persistent impulse or
could relate the circumstances that led to his confinement tendency to steal? - If the mental disease or mental defect of
- if he could distinguish between right and wrong, had no the accused only diminishes the exercise of his will-power, and
delusions, no mental deficiency, symptoms are not socially did not deprive him of the consciousness of his acts, then
incapacitating, and that he could adjust to his environment kleptomania, if it be the result of his mental disease or mental
- if the presence of his reasoning faculties, which enabled him defect, is only a mitigating circumstance.
to exercise sound judgment and satisfactorily articulate the
aforesaid matters, sufficiently discounts any intimation of The courts in the United States have conflicting opinions.
insanity of the accused when he committed the dastardly Some believe that it is an exempting circumstance. Others
felonies believe that it is only a mitigating circumstance.
The case of a person suffering from kleptomania must be What are other cases of lack of intelligence? –
investigated by competent alienist or psychiatrist to determine - committing a crime while in a dream: there is no criminal
whether the impulse to steal is irresistible or not. If the unlawful liability since the act was done without criminal intent and acts
act of the accused is due "to his mental disease or a mental are not voluntary; Somnambulism or sleepwalking, where the
defect, producing an irresistible impulse, as when the accused acts of the person afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the
has been deprived or has lost the power of his will which plea of insanity and must be clearly proven.
would enable him to prevent himself from doing the act," the
irresistible impulse, even to take another's property, should be - hypnotism: same as committing a crime while in a dream;
considered as covered by the term "insanity." Whether or not hypnotism is so effective as to make the
subject act during artificial somnambulism, is still a debatable
Is epilepsy covered by the term “insanity”? - Epilepsy is a question.
chronic nervous disease characterized by fits, occurring at
intervals, attended by convulsive motions of the muscles and - Committing a crime while suffering from malignant malaria:
loss of consciousness. If accused cannot prove he is under the because such illness affects the nervous system and causes
influence of an epileptic fit, he is not exempt from criminal among others such complication as acute melancholia and
liability. insanity at times.

Is feeblemindedness counted as imbecility? – No,

feeblemindedness is not exempting, because the offender PARAGRAPH 2 - A person under nine years of age.
could distinguish right from wrong. An imbecile or an insane
cannot distinguish right from wrong. Is “under nine years” construed as “nine years or less”? -
Yes, "under nine years" should be construed "nine years or
Is pedophilia counted as insanity? – No, pedophilia, a less;" as may be inferred from the next subsequent paragraph
mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. It is a sexual which does not totally exempt a person "over nine years of
disorder where the subject has uncontrollable sexual and age" if he acted with discernment.
physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill,
especially when there are no people around. What is the age of absolute responsibility? – It is raised to
15 y/o
Can amnesia be proof of mental condition of the accused? Republic Act No. 9344 otherwise known as "Juvenile Justice
– No, Amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal and Welfare Act of 2006" raised the age of absolute
charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the accused irresponsibility from nine (9) to fifteen (15) years of age.
did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it Under Section 6 of the said law, a child fifteen (15) years of
was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall
mental condition of the accused when the crime was be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
performed. subject to an intervention program as provided under Section
20 of the same law.
What is the basis of paragraph 2? - The exempting
circumstance of minority is based also on the complete
absence of intelligence

Conditional and mitigated