Article 11 par 1 RPC: JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF SELF-DEFENSE

Rights that may be defended:

1. Right to Property
2. Right to Chastity
3. Right to honor


SELF- Facts 1st Element: Unlawful 2nd Element: Reasonable Necessity 3rd Element: Lack of Distinct
DEFENSE Aggression of the means employed to prevent sufficient Provocation on the ruling in the
(INDISPENSABLE or repel it part of the person defending case at bar /
ELEMENT) himself remarks
People v. The husband pointed a knife There's unlawful aggression. The lone stab wound in the chest The wife did not provoked Defense of
Samson on his wife's neck. When the The husband's aggression proves that the wife feared for her her husband when it pushed person
(2015) wife pushed him, she still continued. The wife's life which impelled her to defend him as she merely
grabbed the knife and perceived peril to her life herself. The fact that the husband is capitalized on a window of
pointed it to her husband. continued ad persisted until no longer armed does not negate opportunity to save herself.
When the husband grabbed she put an end to it. the reasonableness of the means
her, the knife pierced in his employed by the wife. Perfect
chest and he died. equality between the weapon used
by the offender and aggrieved is not
required. What is required is rational
equivalence. Proportionateness
depends upon the imminent danger
of such injury.
People v. CA Tangan and Generoso were There's no unlawful Tangan provoked Generoso
and Tangan involved in a road rage. aggression. The unlawful when he repeatedly blocked
(2001) Tangan took out his gun and aggression must come from the path of Generoso (5
resulted to the death of the victim. The exchange of times).
Generoso. insulting words and
invectives, no matter how
objectionable could not be
considered as unlawful
aggression except when
couple with physical assault.
People v. While Narvaez is sleeping, There's unlawful aggression The killing was disproportionate to No provocation because Defense of
Narvaez the victims chiselled towards Narvaez's property the attack Narvaez was asleep property
(1983) Narvaez's house and fenced rights. There was actual
off the estate. To defend his physical invasion of
right over the property, he Narvaez's property
shot the victims and they
died,
People v. The wife and husband had There's unlawful aggression. The knife tucked in her husband's There's no provocation on
Boholst- an argument which lead to The wound on the left belt is the only reasonable means to the part of the wife.
Caballero the husband being stabbed lumbar region confirms that save her herself from being
(1974) by the wife, which caused the victim was the unlawful strangled and choked to death.
his death. The husband aggressor. Necessity knows no law.
strangled and choked to
death his wife.
People v. Chua Hiong was charged for Letter of Mr. Gocheco Chua Hiong is entitled to show There's no provocation on Defense of
Chua Hiong the crime of libel after writing published in the Manila Gocheco's motive behind the the part of Chua Hiong as Honor
(1955) an article and published it in Chronicle portraying Chua publication "Doubtful Citizenship" to the article published was
the Manila Chronicle Hiong as a Filipino whose dispel the bad impression about him merely a response to a letter
regarding his nephew citizenship was acquired of those who had read it. of Gocheco published in the
(Gocheco). It was a through questionable newspaper
response on the letter of means.
Gocheco published in the
column "Doubtful citizenship"
attacking Chua Hiong's
reputation as he was
accused being a screwed
businessman