ARTICLE 11

Justifying Circumstances
REPORTED BY: GROUP 1
TOPIC WE DISCUSS IN ARTICLE 11
• 1. Self-Defense- Mendiola
• 2. Defense of Relatives- Magcalas
• 3. Defense of a Stranger- De Guzman
• 4. State of Necessity- Danieles
• 5. Fulfillment of Duty- Canlas
• 6. Obedience to an Order- Gomez
CHAPTER 2: Justifying Circumstances and Circumstance
which exemt from Criminal and Civil Liability

• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

•those where the act of a person is said to

be in accordance with law
•the person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law
•There is NO criminal and civil liability
except in paragraph 4
1. Anyone wo acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:

•First. Unlawful aggression.

•Second. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it.
•Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
TWO KINDS OF AGGRESSION:

•1. Lawful aggression

•2. Unlawful aggression
Doctrine of Self-Help
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment
and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may
use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
(Art. 429, Civil Code).
Justifying Circumstances
Defense of property is not of such importance as the
right to life and defense of property can only be invoked
when it is coupled with some form of attack on the
person of one entrusted with said property. The defense
of property, whether complete or incomplete, to be
available in prosecutions for murder or homicide must
be coupled with an attack by the one getting the
property on the person defending it (Justice Gutierrez)
Justifying Circumstances
The deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage
to appellant's house, nor to close his accessibility to the
highway while he was pleading with them to stop and
talk things over with him. The assault on appellant's
property, therefore, amounts to unlawful aggression as
contemplated by law. (People v. Narvaez G.R. Nos. L-
33466-67 April 20, 1983)
Unlawful Aggression
• an assault or at least a threatened assault of an
immediate and imminent kind.
• An actual physical assault upon a person or at least a
threat to inflict real injury.
Unlawful Aggression
• a. ACTUAL
-the danger is present, that is, it is actually is existence
Ex.
• Laquindanum and Fausto were cutting trees on the
backyard they had a heated argument, due to the
frustration of Laquindanum he slashed Fausto with
a bolo causing an injury on the left shooulder of
Fausto, Laquindanum was about to blow again but
fausto retrieve his bolo and slash it in the stomach
of Laquindanum, causing him to fall down and ide
due to blood loss.
Unlawful Aggression
• b. IMMINENT
-the danger is on the point of happening.
Ex.
• John Nel and Patrick were enemies, and
Patrick threatened John Nel that he will kill
him if they cross their path. One night, John
Nel on his way home saw Patrick heading
towards him and Patrick suddenly pulled a
gun and point it at him, John Nel, who is also
armed swiftly drew out his gun and shoot him.
Justifying Circumstances
• Unlawful Aggression
1. There must be actual physical force or actual use
of weapon
2. Insulting words, no matter how objectionable,
without physical force, does not constitute unlawful
aggression
3. A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
Justifying Circumstances
• Unlawful Aggression
4. Retaliation is NOT self-defense
Ex.
• Pedro is walking alone on the street on his way home
after a long tiring day. Then Goyo, punched his at hthe
back of his head causing him to fall down. Goyo didn’t
get satisfied, he kicked him many times before he took
Pedro’s phone and wallet and run away. On his way
home, pedro who is beaten up saw Goyo’s in the street
eating street food, pedro then pick a large stone ang
bashed it to goyo’s head causing him to hospitalized.
Justifying Circumstances
• Unlawful Aggression
4. Retaliation is NOT self-defense.
5. The unlawful aggression must come from the person
who was attacked by the accused.
Ex.
• A and B are together and then A saw his enemy
which C, a pulled a knife and wants to stab C, C
then saw that A pulled a knife, so he did the
same thing and stab A and B.
Justifying Circumstances
• Unlawful Aggression
• 6. No unlawful aggression when there is agreement to
fight.
• 7. Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.
Justifying Circumstances
• Unlawful Aggression
7. Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful aggression.

8. The belief of the accused may be considered in

determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
Ex.

• A, an army veteran, was using the public

toilet to urinate. B, a stranger, approached
head, and shouting “papatayin kita”,as just
two skillful moves, A successfully disarmed
B and karate chopped his neck. B tell down
and died. Unknown to A, there was a hidden
camera as it was just a prank.
Mistake of Fact

•“IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT”

-an honest mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent which arises
upon the commission of a felonious act (Pp v.
Oanis, 74 Phil 257).
Mistake of Fact

-THE ACT DONE WOULD HAVE BEEN

LAWFUL, HAD THE FACTS BEEN AS
THE ACCUSED BELIEVED THEM TO
BE.
1. Anyone wo acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:

•First. Unlawful aggression.

•Second. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it.
•Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it
•Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION
•Necessity of the MEANS USED
1.Necessity of the COURSE OF ACTION

•EX.
-Someone attacked you with a knife but
you were carrying a firearm and you shot
him.
-Someone attacked you with a knife but
you blocked it, and the assailant ran away.
You chased him and killed him.
2.Necessity of the MEANS EMPLOYED

•EX.
-Someone attacked you with a knife but
you were carrying a firearm and you shot
him.
 Self-Defense Defense of relatives Defense of stranger

1.) Unlawful 1.) Unlawful aggression 1.) Unlawful aggression

aggression
2. Reasonable 2. Reasonable necessity of 2. Reasonable necessity
necessity of the means the means employed to of the means employed
employed to prevent prevent or repel it. to prevent or repel it.
or repel it.

3. Lack of sufficient 3. In case the provocation 3. The person defending

provocation on the was given by the person be not induced by
part of the person attacked, the one making revenge, resentment, or
fending himself the defense had no part other evil motive.
therein.
1. Anyone wo acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:

•First. Unlawful aggression.

•Second. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it.
•Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
• PROVOCATION
-action or speech held to be likely to prompt physical
retaliation.
• SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
- provocation must be appropriate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its
commission.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
1. When no provocation at all was given by the person
defending
2. Even if a provocation was given, it was not
sufficient
3. Even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not
given by the person defending himself
4. The provocation was not proximate and immediate
to the act of aggression
Question?
What will happen if ONE or SOME of the
REQUISITES of self-defense are NOT
PRESENT?
If unlawful aggression is NOT present
(X) Unlawful aggression.
(→) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
(→) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
NO SELF-DEFENSE ACCUSED IS
CRIMINAL LIABLE
If only unlawful aggression is present
(→) Unlawful aggression.
(X) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
(X) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
ORDINARY MITIGATION
CIRCUMSTANCE, under Art. 13
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances.
The following are mitigating circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability, in the respective
cases are not attendant.
Ordinary Mitigating circumstances.
Penalty provides 2 indivisible Penalties

Ex.
Reclusion Perpetua to Death → Reclusion
Perpetua (art 63)
Ordinary Mitigating circumstances.
Divisible Penalty having three (3) periods:

Ex.
Reclusion Temporal → Reclusion temporal in its
Minimum Period (Art 64, Par. 2 and Art 76)
2 Condition/Requisites are present
(→) Unlawful aggression.
(→) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
(X) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, Under Art. 69
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
wholly excusable. - A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to
justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of
such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and
nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance
Ex:
HOMICIDE under Art. 249
imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal→
Prision Mayor (1 degree lower) or → Prision
Correccional (2 degree lower).
•In what case is the accused NOT
criminally liable even in the absence of
any of the condition for Self-Defense?
R.A. 9262 ANTI- VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF
2004

THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

Justifying Circumstances
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. -
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering
from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
-In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who
was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of
the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by
expert psychiatrists/ psychologists.
THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Tension- Building Phase

Acute Battering Incident

Tranquil Loving Phase

Three phase of the Cycle of Violence
1. Tension-Building Phase - minor battering occurs --
it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another
form of hostile behavior
2. Acute Battering Incident - Is said to be
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and,
sometimes, death.
3. Tranquil Loving Phase - a period wherein the
couple experience profound relief.
People vs Genosa gr no. 135981 1/15/14
1. There must be at least two battering episodes between
the appellant and her intimate partner.
2. The final acute battering episode preceding the killing
of the batterer must have produced in the battered
person's mind an actual fear of an imminent harm
3. At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed
probable -- not necessarily immediate and actual -- grave
harm to the accused.
Ex.
Juanito was married to Mariana. One afternoon, they
quarelled over who was going to pickup their son. Feeling
upset, Juanito went out and when he returned late that
night, he was drunk. He saw Mariana and grabbed her hair
and threw her against the wall. Because of the impact, her
head was bleeding. He punched her face and kicked her
five times. Realizing what he had one, Juanito carried her
and laid her on the bed while saying, "I'm sorry my love.
Forgive me! This will not happen again! I promise!".
Mariana could not move for an hour. When she got up, she
took a knife and stabbed her sleeping husband to death.
TOPIC WE DISCUSS IN ARTICLE 11
• 1. Self-Defense
• 2. Defense of Relatives
• 3. Defense of a Stranger
• 4. State of Necessity
• 5. Fulfillment of Duty
• 6. Obedience to an Order
Relatives defended under par. 2
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree
Ascendants

Grandparents

Parents

YOU
Descendants

YOU

Children

Grandchildren
Relatives by Consanguinity within the 4 th
civil degree
Grandparents

Parents Uncle

YOU Cousin
Relatives by AFFINITY within the same
degree
Parents-in-Law
Sister/Brother-in-Law
Son/Daughter-in-Law
Defense of Relatives
Common Law Spouses
- Couple who live together as spouse, but have not
legally married each other
Defense of Relatives

• 1. Unlawful Aggression
• 2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
• 3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein
Defense of Relatives

Ex. A saw B walking with his brother C.

A pulled out his knife and tried to stab B but
B stepped back. A was about to stab B again
but C, who was then armed, pulled out his
gun and shot A who died as a consequence.
Defense of Relatives

Ex. A saw B walking with his brother C.

B ran towards A and tried to stab him with a
knife but A blocked the attack. A also pulled
out his knife and tried to stab B but C
intervened and shot A who died as a
consequence.
 Defense of Relatives
Ex. Juan saw his enemy Pedro. Juan rushed towards
Pedro and tried to hack him with a bolo but missed.
When Juan tried to neck Pedro again, Juan lost
balance and fell. Pedro pulled out his own bolo and
raised it as Juan was trying to get up to attack Pedro
once more. Bruno, Juan's brother, arrived and saw
Pedro who was about to hack Juan. Bruno shot
Pedro who did not know that Juan was the one who
attacked first.
 Defense of Relatives
1. Unlawful Aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it.
3. In case the Provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part therein
Ex.
Leng was with her brother Cardo when shag
approached vana seld huble. invectives at her,
calling her "igat ka..malandi.. pokpok.. maduming
babae.. inagaw mo boypren ko na si
Laito..Infuriated, Ivana grabbed the knife she was
using and tried to stab Leng bụt missed. Ivana tried
to stab Leng again but Cardo pulled out his gun and
shot Ivana to death.
Ex.
Pia was with her brother Aklas when she saw her
enemy Miya selling bbq. Aklas approached Miya
and hurled invectives at her, calling her "Igat ka!
Malandi pokpok! Maduming babae! nagaw mo
boypren ng kapatid ko na si Dogy.. Infuriated, Miya
grabbed the knife she was using and tried to stab
Pia but missed. Miya tried to stab Pia again but
Aklas pulled out his gun and shot Miya to death.
Defense of Strangers

• 1. Unlawful Aggression
• 2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
• 3. The person defending be not included by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Defense of Strangers

Stranger
-Any person not included in the enumeration
Of relatives motivates in paragraph 2 on of
art 11.
Defense of Strangers

• 1. Unlawful Aggression
• 2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
• 3. The person defending be not included by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Defense of Stranger

Ex. While A was walking, he heard

screams and ran towards the sound. A saw
K trying to stab X. A resented K because
they exchanged fist blows a month ago. A
pulled out his knife and stabbed K to
prevent him from stabbing X.
 State of Necessity
Par. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present;
• First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
• Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
• Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
State of Necessity

•First. That the evil sought to be avoided

actually exists;
•Second. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it;
•Third. That there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing it.
Stare of Necessity

Par. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an

evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present;

means INJURY to person or DAMAGE to

property
Ex.

While A was driving carefully one night, an

unlighted truck in the opposite direction
swerved to his lane and was heading
towards him. In a split second decision, A
turned violently to the right where he ran
over a bicycle rider who died.
Ex

Five nipa huts owned by different people

were built just one meter apart from each
other. The farthest nipa hut caught fire and
in order to prevent the burning of the other
nipa huts, one of the owners pulled down
and destroyed the adjoining nipa hut.
State of Necessity
In this example, the person who destroyed the
nearest nipa hut to save the others may be
criminally charged for Malicious Mischief under
Article 327 for deliberately causing damage.

But, he can invoke the justifying circumstance of

State of Necessity and prove that his act was
justified.
State of Necessity

The evil sought to be avoided

must not be attributable to the
person raising the justifying
circumstance.
State of Necessity

A was driving beyond the speed limit one

night because he was in a hurry.
Because of the speed, A lost control and
was headed directly towards a tree. To
avoid the tree, he swerved to the left where
he hit a pedestrian who died on the spot.
State of Necessity

•First. That the evil sought to be avoided

actually exists;
•Second. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it;
•Third. That there be no other practical
and less harmful means of preventing it.
State of the Necessity

The truck carrying gasoline was parked in the

gasoline station. It caught fire and started to
burn. To prevent the station from being
destroyed, they pushed the truck away and its
momentum made it crash against the house of
X which also burned as a result.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE

•those where the act of a person is said to

be in accordance with law
•the person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law
•There is NO criminal and civil liability
except in paragraph 4
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty
of felony.- Every person criminally liable for
a felony is also civilly liable.
Article 101 of the RPC

Rules regarding civil liability in certain

cases. - The exemption from criminal liability
established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of
Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11
of this Code does not include exemption from
civil liability, which shall be enforced subject
to the following rules:
Article 101 of the RPC

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4

of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit
the harm has been prevented shall be civilly
liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have received.
Ex.
A had a barn full of cows. The neighboring
property owned by B was filled with crops and
vegetables. One day while X was walking, he saw
the barn was burning. To save the cows, he opened
the doors of the barn and all the cows went to the
neighbor's land where they destroyed the crops
and vegetables.
Fulfillment of Duty

Par. 5. Any person who acts

in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of
a right or office.
Fulfillment of Duty

1.) That the accused acted in the performance

of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office;
2.) That the injury caused or the offense
committed by the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

Section 2. No violence or
unnecessary force shall be used in
making an arrest, and the person
arrested shall not be subject to any
greater restraint than is necessary for
his detention.
Doctrine of Self-Help
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment
and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may
use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
(Art. 429, Civil Code).
Take note:
Under this paragraph (lawful exercise of a right), it is
not necessary that there be unlawful aggression
against the person charged with the protection of the
property.
If there is unlawful aggression against the person
charged with the protection of the property, then Par.
1 of Art. 11 applies.
- Reyes
Fulfillment of Duty

1.) That the accused acted in the performance

of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office;
2.) That the injury caused or the offense
committed by the necessary consequence of
the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.
Ex

A issued PDCs in favor of JG Corp., a

subdivision developer. JG Corp. failed to
develop his unit within the time limit so A
gave a "stop payment" order to the bank.
When the checks were presented for
payment, the POCs bounced. JG Corp. filed
a criminal case of BP 22 against A.
 PD no. 957
Section 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No installment payment
made by a buyer in a subdivision or condominium project for the lot
or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in favor of the owner or
developer when the buyer, after due notice to the owner or developer,
desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or
developer to develop the subdivision or condominium project
according to the approved plans and within the time limit for
complying with the same. Such buyer may, at his option, be
reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but
excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate.
Ex. Of an “exercise of an office”

dodong was sent to the emergency room.

His right leg was amputated to prevent the
disease from spreading elsewhere. Upon
regaining consciusness after the operation,
the parents of dodong filed a criminal case
of mutilation against the surgeon.
Obedience to a Lawful Order

Par. 6. Any person who acts in

obedience to an order issued
by a superior for some lawful
purpose.
Obedience to a Lawful Order

1. That an order has been issued by a

superior
2. That such order must be for some
lawful purpose
3. That the means used by the subordinate
to carry out said order is lawful
Ex

A was ordered by his police

superior B to torture the arrested
prisoner to elicit a confession and to
make him feel the pain he caused to
the families of his victims.
 Republic Act no. 9745
anti- Torture Act of 2009
• Section 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms
shall mean:
a) "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes
as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;
punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a
third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority. It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Thankyou