Self-Defense

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides for instances where a person may defend himself but not be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law.

Article liability!

of the Revised Penal Code states that the following do not incur criminal

"Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights# provided that the following circumstances concur! $irst. %nlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. himself.( &ac' of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

The aforementioned provision refers to self-defense. )n stating that the persons cited in the above provision do not incur any criminal liability# the Revised Penal Code recogni*es the acts of such persons as +ustified. Therefore# such persons are not criminals as there is no crime committed.

The +ustifying circumstance of self-defense includes defense of life# chastity# property and honor of the accused.

The first re,uisite of self-defense refers to unlawful aggression on the part of the person in+ured or 'illed by the accused. This is an indispensable re,uisite. Self defense may not be availed of unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.

$or the right of defense to e-ist# it is necessary that we be assaulted or that we be attac'ed# or at least be threatened with an attac' which is immediate and imminent. )f there is no unlawful aggression# there is no occasion to spea' of reasonable necessity of the means employed or of sufficient provocation on the part of one invo'ing legitimate self defense# because both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression.

The first re,uisite of defense says that the aggression must be unlawful. .ence# the fulfillment of a duty or the e-ercise of a right in a more or less violent manner is an aggression but is lawful.

Thus# the act of a chief of police who employed violence by throwing stones at the accused when the latter was running away to elude arrest for a crime committed in his presence is not unlawful aggression it appearing that the purpose of the peace officer was to capture the accused and place him under arrest.

.owever# a public officer e-ceeding his authority may become unlawful aggressor. Thus# a provincial sheriff who in carrying out a writ of e-ecution# e-ceeded his authority by ta'ing against the will of the +udgment debtor personal property with sentimental value to the latter# although other personal property sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff was made available to said sheriff# was an unlawful aggressor and the debtor had a right to repel the unlawful aggression. /People v. .ernande*# 01 Phil. 2324

Article 531 of the new Civil Code also provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to e-clude any person from the en+oyment and disposal thereof. $or 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. Thus# under the new Civil Code a person may use force or violence to protect his property and if in protecting his property such person uses force to prevent its being ta'en by another# the owner of the property is not an unlawful aggressor because he merely e-ercising a right.

The same is true with regards a paramour surprised in the act of adultery. .e cannot invo'e self defense if he 'illed the offended husband who was assaulting him. )n a case# the supreme court in denying the paramour6s plea of self defense said! "7ven it were true and even if the deceased did succeed in entering the room in which the accused# the paramour# and the wife of the deceased were lying and did immediately thereupon assault the paramour giving him several blows with the bolo which the deceased carried that assault was natural and lawful for the reason that is was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender of his honor and if he had 'illed his wife and the paramour# he would have e-ercised a lawful right and such acts would have fallen within the sanction of Article 352 /now Article 5384 of the Revised Penal Code9 the paramour well 'new that by maintaining unlawful relations with the deceased6s wife he was performing an unlawful relations with the deceased6s wife# he was performing an unlawful and criminal act and e-posed himself to the vengeance of the offended husband and that by their meeting each other in the said house he was running the danger of the latter6s surprising them there# as in fact it did occur.(

%nlawful aggression is e,uivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent 'ind. There is unlawful aggression when there is peril to one6s life# limb or right. There must be an actual physical assault upon a person or at least a threat to inflict in+ury.

The person defending himself must have been attac'ed with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon# thus# insulting words addressed to the accused no matter how ob+ectionable they may have been without physical assault could not constitute unlawful aggression. /%S v. Carrero# 1 Phil. 0334

:hen a person is attac'ed# he is in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. The blow with a deadly weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his body# in which case there is danger to his life# or with a less in+uries only aimed at other parts of the body# in which case there is danger only to his limb.

The peril to one6s limb includes peril to the safety of one6s person from physical in+uries. An attac' with fists blows may imperil one6s safety from physical in+uries. Such an attac' is unlawful aggression. A light push on the head with the hand does not constitute unlawful aggression. /People v. ;uman# < Phil. 8=<4 A mere push or a shove# not followed by other acts# does not constitute unlawful aggression. /People v. Sabio# >.R. ?o. &-52823# April 58# 1<84 @ut a slap on the face is an unlawful aggression since the face represents the person and his dignity. Slapping the face is a serious personal attac'. )t is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard of an individualAs personality. )t may# therefore# be fre,uently regarded as placing in real danger a personAs dignity# rights and safety. /People v. Sabio# >.R. ?o. &-52823# April 58# 1<84

)n case of threat# the same must be offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful intent to cause an in+ury.

Bn the contrary# mere belief of an impending attac' is not sufficient. ?either is an intimidating or threatening attitude. 7ven a mere push or shove not followed by other acts placing in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression. /People v. @autista# 503 SCRA <5 4

:hen a person who was insulted# slightly in+ured or threatened# made a strong retaliation by attac'ing the one who gave the insult# caused the slight in+ury or made the threat# the former became the offender# and the insult# in+ury or threat should be considered only as a provocation mitigating his liability. /%.S. v. Carrera# 1 Phil. 0334 )n this case# there is no self-defense. Retaliation is different from self-defense. )n retaliation# aggression that was begun by the in+ured party already ceased to e-ist when the accused attac'ed him. )n self-defense# the aggression was still e-isting when the aggressor was in+ured or disabled by the person ma'ing a defense.

?oteworthy is the fact that the attac' made by the deceased and the 'illing of the deceased by defendant should succeed each other without appreciable interval of time. )n order to +ustify homicide on the ground of self-defense# it is essential that the 'illing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attac' made by the deceased# or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time. /%.S. v. $errer# Phil. 0<4

:hen the aggressor flees# unlawful aggression no longer e-ists# the one ma'ing a defense has no more right to 'ill or even to wound the former aggressor. @e it noted# however# that this is different from retreat in order to ta'e a more advantageous position. )f it is clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to ta'e a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attac' already begun by him# the unlawful aggression# is considered still continuing# and the one ma'ing a defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him.

Conversely# no unlawful aggression e-ists in a fight that is concerted# as when the accused and the deceased# after an altercation in a bar# agreed to fight# went to a store and purchased two 'nivesC that thereafter# the accused repeatedly e-pressed his desire and wish to the deceased not to fight# and that the former begged the latter that there be no fight between them# and that the deceased paid no heed to such re,uest and attac'ed the accusedC but the accused succeeded in 'illing the deceased. )t. was held that the aggression was reciprocal and legitimate as between two contending parties. /%.S. v. ?avarro# 8 Phil. 8 24 ?evertheless# when the aggression is ahead of the stipulated time and place or when one voluntarily +oined a fight# it is unlawful.

:ith regards peace officers# the rule now is Dstand ground when in the right.D The ancient common law rule in homicide denominated Dretreat to the wall#D has now given way to the new rule Dstand ground when in the right.D So# where the accused is where he has the right to be# the law does not re,uire him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with

a deadly weapon. /%.S. v. Domen# 28 Phil. 084 The reason for the rule is that if one flees from an aggressor# he runs the ris' of being attac'ed in the bac' by the aggressor. The second re,uisite of self-defense is the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. This re,uisite of ta'es as fact the e-istence of unlawful aggression. .ence# in stating the second re,uisite# two phrases are used# namely! to prevent and to repel. :hen we are attac'ed# the danger to our life or limb is either imminent or actual. )n ma'ing a defense# we prevent the aggression that places us in imminent danger or repel the aggression that places us in actual danger. A threat to inflict real in+ury places us in imminent danger. An actual physical assault places us in actual danger.

The reasonableness of such necessity depends on the e-istence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and e-tent of the aggression. )f there was no unlawful aggression or# if there was# it has ceased to e-ist# there would be no necessity for any course of action to ta'e as there is nothing to prevent or to repel.

The person attac'ed is not duty-bound to e-pose himself to be wounded or 'illed# and while the 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 he may not continue the assault. /%.S. v. Eolina# 1 Phil. 5584

)n emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled# human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation. The reasonableness of the necessity to ta'e a course of action and the reasonableness of the necessity of the means employed depend upon the circumstances of the case. )n a situation# li'e the one at bar# where the accused# who was then unarmed# was being mauled with fistic blows by the deceased and his companions for refusing their offer to drin' wine# pic'ed up a lead pipe within his reach and with it struc' the deceased on the forehead resulting in the latterAs death# the use by the accused of such lead pipe under the circumstances is reasonable. That the accused did not select a lesser vital portion of the body of the deceased to hit is reasonably to be e-pected# for in

such a situation# the accused has to move fast# or in split seconds# otherwise# the aggression on his person would have continued and his life endangered. /People v. Bcaria# C.A.# <8 B.>. 22 24 The person defending is not e-pected to control his blow. Defense of person or rights does not necessarily mean the 'illing of the unlawful aggressor. @ut the person defending himself cannot be e-pected to thin' clearly so as to control his blow. The 'illing of the unlawful aggressor may still be +ustified as long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete self-defense are still present. Bne is not re,uired# when hard pressed# to draw fine distinctions as to the e-tent of the in+ury which a rec'less and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him.

The fact that the accused struc' one blow more than was absolutely necessary to save his own life# or that he failed to hold his hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal wound where a stro'e might have served the purpose# would not negate self-defense# because the accused# in the heat of an encounter is not in a position to reflect coolly or to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof.

The means employed by the person ma'ing a defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. Thus in the following cases# there was no rational necessity to employ the means used. a. A sleeping woman# who was awa'ened by her brother-in-law grasping her arm# was not +ustified in using a 'nife to 'ill him as the latter did not perform any other act which could be construed as an attempt against her honor. /%.S. v. Apego# 52 Phil. 21 4 b. :hen a person was attac'ed with fist blows only# there was no reasonable necessity to inflict upon the assailant a mortal wound with a dagger. /People v. Eontalbo# 0< Phil. 3324 There# was in this case# a reasonable necessity to act by using fist blows also. @ut there was no necessity to employ a dagger to repel such an aggression. c. :hen a man placed his hand on the upper thigh of a woman seated on a bench in a chapel where there were many people and which was well-lighted# there was no reasonable

necessity to 'ill him with a 'nife because there was no danger to her chastity or honor. /People v. Faurigue# 8< Phil. 834

The test of whether or not the means employed is reasonable# will depend upon the nature and ,uality of the weapon used by the aggressor# his physical condition# character# si*e and other circumstances# and those of the person defending himself# and also the place and occasion of the assault. Perfect e,uality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is not re,uired# because the person does not have sufficient tran,uility of mind to thin'# to calculate and to choose which weapon to use. /People v. Padua# C.A.# 3G B.>. 11=4

Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material commensurability between the means of attac' and defense. :hat the law re,uires is rational e,uivalence# in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency# the imminent danger to which the person attac'ed is e-posed# and the instinct# more than reason# that moves or impels the defense# and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done# but rests upon the imminent danger of such in+ury.D /People v# 7ncomienda# ?o. &-5<80G# Aug. =# 185# 3< SCRA 0554

.ence# the re,uisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression should in these times of danger be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citi*ens. )n fact# while the law on self-defense allows a private individual to prevent or repel an aggression# the duty of a peace officer re,uires him to overcome his opponent. Thus# the fact that a policeman# who was armed with a revolver and a club# might have used his club instead# does not alter the principle since a policemanAs club is not a very effective weapon as against a drawn 'nife and a police officer is not re,uired to afford a person attac'ing him the opportunity for a fair and e,ual struggle. /%.S. in v. Eo+ica# 35 Phil. 8=3# 8=84

)n the case of %.S. vs. Eendo*a# 5 Phil. G1#

G# it was held fit that it is not reasonably

necessary for a policeman to 'ill his assailant to repel an attac' with a calicut. The use by a

police officer of his service revolver in repelling the aggression of the deceased who assaulted him with a 'itchen 'nife and continued to give him thrusts in the confines of a small room measuring < feet by < feet is reasonable and necessary. Considering the imminent danger to which his life was e-posed at the time# he could hardly be e-pected to choose coolly# as he would under normal conditions# the use of his club as a less deadly weapon to use against his assailant. As a police officer in the lawful performance of his official duty# he must stand his ground and cannot# li'e a private individual# ta'e refuge in flight. .is duty re,uires him to overcome his opponent.

The third re,uisite of self-defense is the lac' of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. :hen the person defending himself from the attac' by another gave sufficient provocation to the latter# the former is also to be blamed for having given cause for the aggression. .ence# to be entitled to the benefit of the +ustifying circumstance of self-defense# the one defending himself must not have given sufficient cause for the aggression by his un+ust conduct or by inciting or provo'ing the assailant.

@e it noted that is this re,uisite# the provocation must have been sufficient which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and ade,uate to stir the aggressor to its commission. /People v. Alconga# 8= 2<<4 Thus# to engage in a verbal argument cannot be considered sufficient provocation. /Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of Bctober 0# =884

)n the following cases# this re,uisite of self-defense is considered present and sufficient! . :hen one challenges the deceased to come out of the house and engage in a fistfight with him and prove who is the better man. 5. :hen one hurls insults or imputes to another the utterance of vulgar language# as when the accused and his brothers imputed to the deceased# the utterance of vulgar language against them# which imputation provo'ed the deceased to attac' them. /People v. Sotelo# 00 Phil. 3G24 @ut it is not enough that the provocative act

be unreasonable or annoying. A petty ,uestion of pride does not +ustify the wounding or 'illing of an opponent. /People v. Dolfo# C.A.# 3< B.>. <5 4 2. :hen the accused tried to forcibly 'iss the sister of the deceased. The accused thereby gave sufficient provocation to the deceased to attac' him. There is no complete self-defense# because the third re,uisite is not present. /People vs. >etida# CA->.R. ?o. 5 = -R# Fan. <# 10 4

?ote the phrase Don the part of the person defending himselfD in the third re,uisite of self-defense. Thus# in the case of People v. @alansag# <G Phil. 5<<# it was held that the third re,uisite of self-defense was present# because the provocation proven at the trial as not given by the accused but by the brother-in-law of the deceased.

There are instances# however# when provocation by the person defending himself not pro-imate and immediate to the aggression.

Thus# if A slapped the face of @ one or two days before and @# upon meeting A# attac'ed the latter but was seriously in+ured when A defended himself# the provocation given by A should be disregarded# because it was not pro-imate and immediate to the aggression made by @. )n this case# the third re,uisite of self-defense is still present.

)n line with the cogni*ance of self-defense as a +ustifying circumstance# the @attered :oman Syndrome may now be admitted as a matter of defense.

A battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly sub+ected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. @attered women include not only wives but also other women in any form of intimate relationship with men. $urthermore# in order to be classified as a battered woman# the couple must go through the battering cycle at least twice.

:omen who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered women syndrome do not incur criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for +ustifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code. )n 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 e-pert psychiatrist# psychiatrists or psychologists.

:hile new in Philippine +urisprudence# the concept has been recogni*ed in foreign +urisdictions as a form of self-defense or# at the least# incomplete self-defense. @y appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the syndrome# foreign courts convey their understanding of the +ustifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically abused and controlled over a period of time.

Self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient# satisfactory and convincing evidence that e-cludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invo'ing it.( /People v. ?acuspag# 0 SCRA 85 H 1=5I4 All of the three

aforementioned re,uisites must concur for the +ustifying circumstance of self-defense to be appreciated.

:here the accused has admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased# it is incumbent upon the appellant# in order to avoid criminal liability# to prove self-defense to the satisfaction of the court. )n so doing# he must rely on the strength of his own evidence# and not on the wea'ness of the prosecution.

)t cannot be +ustifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any competent evidence but in itself is e-tremely doubtful. .is duty is to establish self defense by clear and convincing evidence# otherwise# conviction would follow from his admission that he 'illed the victim.