Chapter 2.
Justifying Circumstances and basis: the law recognizes the non-
Circumstances Which EXEMPT from
Criminal Liability
Circumstances affecting criminal liability:
1. Justifying Circumstances
2. Exempting Circumstances and other
Absolutory Causes
3. Mitigating Circumstances
4. Aggravating Circumstances
5. Alternative Circumstances
Imputability
quality by which an act may be ascribed
to a person as its author or owner
implies that the act committed has been
freely and consciously done and may,
therefore, be put down to the doer as his
very own
Responsibility
- obligation of suffering the consequences
of crime
- the obligation of taking the penal and
civil consequences of the crime
Imputability Responsibility
- - implies that a - implies that the
deed may be person must take
imouted to a the consequence of
person such deed
Guilt
- an element of responsibility
- a man cannot answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is
guilty
Justifying Circumstances
- those where the act of a person is said to
be in accordance with law, so that such
person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from
both criminal and civil liability
- there is no civil liability, except in par. 4
of Article 11, where the civil liability is
borne by the persons benefited by the act
existence of a crime by expressly
stating in the opening sentence of
Article 11 that the persons therein
mentioned do not incur any criminal
liability.
ARTICLE 11.
- there is no crime committed, the act
being justified
- in stating that the persons mentioned
therein do not incur criminal liability,
Article 11 recognizes the acts of such
persons as justified
Burden of Proof
- circumstances mentioned in Article 11
are matters of defense and it is
incumbent upon the accused to prove
the justifying circumstances claimed by
him to the satisfaction of the court
Self-defense
- where the accused invokes self-defense,
it is incumbent upon him to prove by
clear and convincing evidence that he
indeed acted in defense of himself
- he must rely on the strength of his own
evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution
- must be proved with certainty by
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing
evidence
- burden of proof rests on the accused
- plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably
entertained where it is not only
uncorroborated by any separate
competent evidence but in itself is
extremely doubtful
Self defense
The following instances must occur:
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending
himself
 Rights included: (protected by law)
1. Right to Life
- rests the legitimate defense of
our person
2. Right to Property
- acquired by us
3. Right to Honor
- not the least prized of mans
patrimony
Unlawful Aggression
- on the part of the person injured
or killed by the accused
- indispensable requisite
- statutory and doctrinal
requirement
- its presence is a condition sine
qua non
- there can be no self-defense,
complete or incomplete, unless
the victim has committed an
unlawful aggression against the
person defending himself
- it is necessary that we be
assaulted or that we be attacked,
or atleast that we be threatened
with an attack in an immediate
and imminent manner
- if there is no unlawful
aggression, there is nothing to
prevent or repel. The second
requisite of defense will have
no basis
- there must be actual physical
force or actual use of weapon
- without physical assault, it
could not constitute unlawful
aggression
Aggression
- must be unlawful
- 2 kinds:
1. Lawful
2. Unlawful
Unlawful Aggression
- equivalent to assault or atleast
threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind
- when the peril to ones life, limb or right
is either actual or imminent
- there must be actual physical force or
actual use of weapon
- there must be actual physical assault
upon a person, or atleast threat to inflict
real injury
- threat must be offensive and positively
strong, showing the wrongful intent to
cause an injury
- presupposes an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof
- an attack that has actually broken out or
materialized or at the very least is clearly
imminent, it cannot consist in oral
threats or a merely threatening stance or
posture
- there must be a real danger to life or
personal safety
- when the peril to ones life, limb or
right is either actual or imminent
- the act of the deceased in preventing the
accused from inflicting a retaliatory blow
on the person who had boxed the
accused is not unlawful aggression
Peril to ones life
1. Actual danger must be present,
that is actually in existence
2. Imminent danger is on the point of
happening. It is not required that the
attack already begins, for it may be
too late
Peril to ones limb
- when a person is ttacked, he is in
imminent danger of death and bodily
harm
- less deadly weapon or any other
weapon that can cause minor physical
injuries only, aimed at other parts of
the body
- may also be actual or only imminent
- includes peril to the safety of ones
person from physical injuries
Mere belief of an impending attack is
not sufficient.
Retaliation
- not self-defense
- is different from an act of self-defense
- not a justifying circumstance
- when unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender no longer has the right to kill or
even wound the former aggressor
- if he persists in attacking his adversary,
he can no longer invoke the justifying
circumstance of self-defense
- Self-defense does not justify the
unnecessary killing of an aggressor
who is retreating from the fray
Retaliation Self-defense
- - the aggression - the aggression
that was begun by was still existing
the injured party when the aggressor
already ceased to was injured or
exist when the disabled by the
accused attacked person making a
him- defense
The attack made by the deceased and
the killing of the deceased by
defendant should succeed each other
without appreciable interval of time
- in order to justify homicide on the
ground of self-defense, it is essential that
the killing of the deceased by the
defendant be simultaneous with the
attack made by the deceased, or atleast
both acts succeeded each other without
appreciable interval of titme
- when the killing of the deceased by the
accused was after the attack made by the
deceased, the accused must have no time
nor occasion for deliberation and cool
thinking
The unlawful aggression must come
from the person who was attacked by
the accused
- in order to constitute an element of
self-defense, the unlawful aggression
must come directly or indirectly,
from the person who was
subsequently attacked by the accused
- There being no unlawful aggression,
there could be no self-defense
The fact that the accused declined to
give any statement when he
surrendered to a policeman is
inconsistent with the plea of self-
defense
- when the accused surrendered to
the policemen, he declined to give
any statement, which is the
natural course of things he would
have done if he had acted merely
to defend himself
- a protestation of innocence of
justification is the logical and
spontaneous reaction of a man
who finds himself in such an
inculpatory predicament
Physical fact may determine whether
the accused acted in self-defense
- the physical fact belies the claim
of self-defense
When the aggressor flees, unlawful
aggression no longer exists
- when unlawful aggression which
has begun no longer exists,
because the aggressor runs away,
the one making a defense has no
more right to kill or even to
wound the former aggressor
Retreat to take more advantageous
position
- if it is clear that the purpose of the
aggressor in retreating is to take a
more advantageous position to
insure the success of the attack
already begun by him, the
unlawful aggression is considered
still continuing, and the one
making a defense has a right to
pursue him in his retreat and to
disable him
No unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight
Aggression which is ahead of the
stipulated time and place is unlawful
 One who voluntarily joined a fight
cannot claim self-defense
The rule now is stand ground when
in the right
- where the accused is where he has the
right to be, the law does not require
him to retreat when his assailant is
rapidly advancing upon him with a
deadly weapon
- reason: if one flees from an
aggressor, he runs the risk of being
attacked in the back by the aggressor
How to determine the unlawful
aggressor
- in the absence of direct evidence to
determine who provoked the conflict,
it has been held that is shall be
presumed that, in the nature of the
order of things, the person who was
deeply offended by the insult was the
one who believed he had the right to
demand explanation of the
perpetrator of that insult, and the one
who also struck the first blow when
he was not satisfied with the
explanation offered
Unlawful aggression in defense of
other rights
1. Attempt to rape a woman
- defense of right to chastity
2. Defense of property
- only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one
entrusted with said property
3. Defense of home
- violent entry to anothers
house at nighttime
The belief of the accused may be
considered in determining the
existence of unlawful aggression
There is self-defense even if the
aggressor used a toy pistol, provided
the accused believed it was a real gun
Threat to inflict real injury as
unlawful aggression
- a mere threatening or intimidating
attitude, not preceded by an
outward and material aggression, is
not unlawful aggression because it
is required that the act be offensive
and positively strong, showing the
wrongful intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury
Mere threatening attitude is not
unlawful aggression
In order to consider that unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it
is necessary that an attack or material
aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the
aggressor to cause an injury
A mere threatening or intimidating
attitude is not sufficient to justify the
commission of an act which is
punishable per se, and allow a claim of
justification on the ground that it was
committed in self-defense
When the intent to attack is manifest,
picking up a weapon is sufficient
unlawful aggression
- when the picking up of a weapon is
preceded by circumstances
indicating the intention of the
deceased to use it in attacking the
defendant, such act is considered
unlawful aggression
Aggression must be real, not
imaginary
- the aggression must be real, or
atleast imminent
Aggression that is expected
- an aggression that is expected is still
real, provided it is imminent
Second Requisite of Defense of Person or
Right: Reasonable necessity of the means
employed ro prevent or repel it
- presupposes the existence of unlawful
aggression, which is either imminent or
actual
(1) to prevent
(2) to repel
- A threat to inflict real injury places us in
imminent danger. An actual physical
assault places us in actual danger
- The law protects not only the person
who tries to repels an aggression
(meaning actual), but even the person
who tries to prevent an aggression that is
expected (meaning imminent)
- Means that:
(1) There be a necessity of the course
of action taken by the person
making a defense; and
(2) There be a necessity of the means
used
- the reasonableness of either or both such
necessity depends on the existence of
unlawful aggression and upon the nature
and extent of the aggression

The necessity to take a course of

action and to use a means of defense
- the person attacked is not duty-
bound to expose himself to be
wounded or killed