JUSTIFYING

CIRCUMSTANCES
(ART.11)
REVISE PENAL CODE
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)
• Those where the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with the law
• The person is deemed not to have transgressed the law
• There is NO Criminal and civil liability (except in
paragraph number 4)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)

1. SELF DEFENSE
2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
3. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)
1. Anyone who 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.
First. Unlawful aggression

• This is the most important element that must be

present so that a person can invoke self defense.
TWO KINDS OF AGRESSION:
a. LAWFUL AGGRESSION
b. UNLAWFUL AGRESSION
A. LAWFUL AGRESSION

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)
A. LAWFUL AGRESSION
• “Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life
and defense circumstances 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)”
A. LAWFUL AGRESSION
• “The deceased had no right to destroy or cause damage
to appellant's house, nor the circumstances close his
accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with
them to stop and talk things over with him. The assault
on depends property, therefore, amounts to unlawful
aggression as contemplated by law. (People v. Narvaez
G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983)”
B. 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.
TWO KINDS OF UNLAWFUL AGRESSION:
1. Actual – the danger is present, that is, it is actually in
existence.
Example: While A and B were cutting trees, they had a heated
argument. A Suddenly slashed B with a bolo thereby wounding
B's right shoulder. A was about to deliver another blow but B was
able to retrieve his bolo and hacked A's stomach. A fell down and
died a few moments later due to blood loss.
TWO KINDS OF UNLAWFUL AGRESSION:
2. Imminent – The danger is on the point of happening.
Example: A and B were enemies and in numerous
occasions, B threatened A that he will kill him when their
pathş will çross. One night while A was coming back
home, he saw heading towards him. B had a gun and he
pointed the gun at him, A, who was also armed with a gun,
swiftly drew out his pistol and shot B.
There are important things that we need to remember
when it comes to 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
4. Retaliation is NOT self-defense
There are important things that we need to remember
when it comes to UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:

5. The unlawful aggression must come from the

person who was attacked by the accused.
6. No unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight
7. Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful
aggression
There are important things that we need to remember
when it comes to UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:

8.The believe of the accuse may be considered in determining

the existence of unlawful aggression.
Example: A, an army veteran, was using the public toilet to
urinate. B, a stranger, approached from behind, pointed a toy
gun at A's head, and shouted "Papatayin kita! in just two skillful
moves, A Successfully disarmed B and karate chopped his neck.
B fell down and died. Unknown to A, there was a hidden
camera as it was just a prank.
MISTAKE OF FACT:
• “IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT”
OR IGNORANCE OF A FACT IS AN EXCUSE,
an honest mistake of fact destroys the
presumption of criminal intent which' arises
upon the commission of a felonious act (Ppv.
Oanis, 74 Phil 257).
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)
1. Anyone who 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.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
Two aspects:
1. Necessity of the course of action – referring to the necessity to
act, it’s answer the question it’s there a necessity to act in that
situation.
For example:
Some one attacked you with a knife but you were carrying a fire arm
and you shot him.
Another Example:

•Someone attacked you with a knife

but you blocked it, and the
assailant ran away. You chased him
and killed him.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
2. Necessity of the means employed -it means it is necessary for
you to use that particular means.
For example: Someone attacked you with a knife but you were
carrying a fire arm and you shot him.
Another example:
Someone shouted at you and slapped you in the face, feeling
angry, you shot him in the head.
 TAKE NOTE!
• Perfect equality between the weapons used
is NOT required.
• Not material commensurability” but only
“rational equivalence”
The reasonableness of the means employed will
depend on:

1. The nature and the quality of the

weapons
2. Physical condition character and
size.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art. 11)
1. Anyone who 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.
Third. 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 proportionate to the act of
aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its
commission
Third. 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 him self.
4. The provocation was not proximate and immediate to the
act of aggression
 QUESTION:

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF ONE OR SOME OF

REQUISITES OF SELF DEFENSE ARE NOT PRESENT?
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.
ONLY UNLAWFUL AGRESSION IS PRESENT:

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.
ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER ART. 13
When the Penalty provides 2 indivisible penalties:
Example: Reclusion Perpetua to Death Reclusion Perpetua
Divisible penalty having three periods:
Example: Reclusion Temporal Reclusion Temporal in its
minimum period.
2 Conditions/Requisites are present
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.
 PREVILEDGED MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE under art. 69
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that circumstances 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.
Example:

Homicide under Art. 249

Imposable penalty is Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor (1 degree lower) or
Prision Correctional (2 degrees lower)
 QUESTION:

IN WHAT CASE IS THE ACCUSED NOT

CRIMINALLY LIABLE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY CONDITIONS FOR SELF DEFENSE?
RA 9262 Anti violence against women and their
children and we are referring to the Battered
woman syndrome (VAWC)
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 not withstanding 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.
Three Phases of the Cycle of Violence:

1. Tension-Building Phase minor battering Occurs-- it could bë

verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile
behavior.
2. Acute Explosion - is said to be characterized by brütality,
destructiveness and, Sometimes, death.
3. Honey moon phase - a period wherein the couple experience
profound relief.
People v. Genosa G.R. No. 135981 1/15/04

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.
Example:
Juanito was married to Mariana. One afternoon, they quarreled
over who was going to pickup their son. Feeling upset, Juanito
went out and when here turned 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.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
(Paragraph 2)
Who are the relatives defended under part 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
GRAND PARENTS

PARENTS

YOU
DESCENDANTS
YOU

CHILDREN

GRAND CHILDREN
Relatives by Consaguinity within the 4th Civil Degree

CONSAGUINITY

“SANGUIS (latin) =
blood.
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY EITHIN THE SAME
DEGREE

•Parents in Law
•Sister/s Brother in Law
•Son/Daughter in Law
Defense of Relatives

1. In case the provocation was given by the person

attacked, the one making the defense had no part
there in.
Example:

• 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
• Unlawful aggression may depend upon the honest belief of the one
making the defense.
Example:
Juan saw his enemy Pedro. Juan rushed towards Pedro and tried to hack him
with a bolo but missed. When Juan tried to hack 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 there in.
Example
Pia was with her brother Aklas when she saw her enemy
Miya selling bbq. Aklas approached Miya and hurled
invectives at her, calling her "Malandi ka! Inagaw mo
böypren ng kapatid ko na” Infuriated, Miya grabbed the
knife she was using añd 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
STRANGER
PARAGRAPH 3 (ARTICLE 11)
Defense of Strangers

any person not included in the

enumeration of relatives mentioned
in paragraph 2 of Art. 11.
Common Law Spouses:

Couple who live together as

spouses, but have not legally
married to each other.
DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of

a stranger, provided that the first and second
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this
article are present and that the person defending be
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
Another Example:

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 x.
THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!!! 
HAPPYYYY HEART’S DAY <3