Module 5

Justifying Circumstances

Article 11. Justifying Circumstances – The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:
a. First, Unlaw aggression
b. Second, Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it
c. Third, Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his 1) spouse, 2)
ascendants, 3) descendants, or 4) legitimate, natural, or adopted
brothers or sisters, or 5) his relatives by affinity in the same degrees,
and 6) those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided
that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
provided, that the first and second requisite mentioned in the first
circumstance of this this article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by 1) revenge, 2) resentment, or 3) other
evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which
causes damage to another, provided, that the following requisites are
present:
a. First, That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
b. Second, That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it
c. Third, That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
5. Any person who 1) acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the 2) lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES AND STRANGERS, DEFENSE OF
PROPERTY, DEFENSE OF REPUTATION

Element of Self-Defense
1. His person or right
2. Unlawful aggression
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Elements of Defense of Relatives

1. person or right of his:
a. spouse
b. descendent
c. ascendent
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
e. relatives by affinity in the same degrees
f. and those by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
2. Unlawful aggression
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
4. In case the provocation was given by the attacked, that the one defending had no part
therein

Element of Defense of Strangers

1. Person or right of a stranger
2. unlawful aggression
3. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
4. person defending be not induced by:
a. revenge
b. resentment or
c. other evil motive

People v. Rubiso, 399 SCRA 267

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
1. His person or right
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim pulled out his gun and pointed it at accused – Not sufficient
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Accused Shot victim resulting to:
i. nature of wounds - 6 bullets wounds, right forehead; left side of the neck;
4 in abdominal region – no longer reasonable
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. unclear

Overt Acts of the Aggressor-Victim

 Boxed appellant on the chest
  Pulled out his gun
 Grappled until gun fell and exploded

Overt Acts of the Accused

 Approached victim from behind
 Gun covered with a towel
 Shot victim at the back
 6 bullets wounds: right forehead; left side of the neck; 4 in abdominal region

What constitutes Unlawful Aggression

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. It
contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and
not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have
been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.

Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be
attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of
aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material
unlawful aggression.

Nature of Wounds
It is an oft repeated rule that the presence of a large number of wounds, their location and their
seriousness would negate self-defense. Instead, they indicate a determined effort to kill.

People v. Enfectana, 381 SCRA 359 (2002)

NOT DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
1. person or right of his:
a. descendent - SON
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim chased the accused’s son with a bladed weapon and tried to stab him –
NO EVIDENCE
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Accused tried to run the victim down with his tricycle
b. The accused and his son took turns in stabbing victim while the latter was
crouching on the ground – 6 stab wounds – NOT REASONABLE
4. In case the provocation was given by the attacked, that the one defending had no part
therein
a. unclear

Overt Acts of the 2 Accused

1. Ran victim down with their tricycle
2. While victim was crouching, began to take turns stabbing him
3. Fled from the scene of the crime

Overt Act of the Victim-Aggressor

1. Chased one of the accused with a bladed weapon called depang
a. Said accused ran away
 b. Other accused came to his son’s rescue
2. Shouted “if the son cannot be killed then I will just kill the father”
3. Tried to stab other accused (parried with a piece of wood)
a. Accused managed to get hold of the bolo and started stabbing victim-aggressor
and then fled

Other important facts

4. Deceased suffered six stab wounds
5. probable cause of death was the stab wound at the back that caused hemorrhage

CREDIBILITY OF EVIDENCE FOR SELF-DEFENSE

As for the issue of self-defense, it is an established principle that once this justifying
circumstance is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who
invokes it

Evidence to be believed must not only come from the mouth of a credible witness but must itself
be credible.
1. No injury
2. Fled from the crime scene
Weighing the conflicting versions of the prosecution and the defense, we agree with the trial
court's conclusion that the prosecution's version is more in accord with the natural course of
things, hence more credible

People v. Genosa 419 SCRA 537 (2004)

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
1. His person or right - YES
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim threated to kill accused
i. Was about to get the gun from the drawer
ii. Pulled out a three-inch long blade cutter from wallet
iii. But accused was able to escape
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Accused shot victim while the latter was sleeping – NOT REASONABLE –
husband no longer presented an actual threat to her life at that time of the killing
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

Overt Act of the Aggressor-Victim

1. Got home drunk
2. Switched off light with a chopping knife
3. Cut off television antenna to keep accused from watching TV
4. Was about to attack accused
5. Got hold of her and threw her to the bed
6. Left
7. Returned
8. Dragged accused outside of bedroom by the neck
9. Threatened to kill her
10. Took out a three-inch long blade cutter from wallet
Over Act of the Victim
1. Ignored drunk husband
2. Ran to the bedroom
3. Screamed for help
4. Packed his clothes
5. Smashed his arm with a pipe (3 feet and 6 inches long; diameter of 1.5 inches)
6. Smashed him again at the nape of the neck
7. Ran to the bedroom
8. Left body of husband (wearing only briefs, bloody, wrapped with a bedsheet)
Other Facts:
1. cause of Ben's death was 'cardiopulmonary arrest
2. depressed fracture of the occipital
3. accused was pregnant
Felony: Paricide

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS SELF-DEFENSE

In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish the legal
right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered in the context of
self-defense.

From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court reckons further that crucial to the
BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the offense — she
must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed in the
need to kill him in order to save her life.

Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of actual physical
assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
predictable pattern. To require the battered person to await an obvious, deadly attack before
she can defend her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still,
impending danger prior to the defendant's use of deadly force must be shown.

The principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-defense. Thus, Marivic's
killing of Ben was not completely justified under the circumstances.

People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983)

NOT DEFENSE (OF PROPERTY)
1. His person or right - property
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim1 ordered his men, including victim2, to continued with the fencing
b. Victim2 continued with the fencing which damaged the accused’s property
despite the latter’s appeal for them to stop - acceptable
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Took his shotgun and shot them – not reasonable
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. no provocation on the part of the person
Overt Act of Aggressor-Victim 1
1. was on the ground
2. angry utterance in answer to accused’s request to stop the fencing
3. Ordered the continuation of the fencing despite accused’s appeal
Overt Act of Aggressor-Victim 2
4. Was on the ground
5. Participated in the continuation fencing despite accused’s appeal
Overt Act of Accused
1. Woke up from the sound outside his room to see one of the deceased’s laborer was
chiseling the wall of his house with a crowbar
2. Was on the second floor
3. Appealed to victims to stop the fencing
4. When they didn’t stop, he took a shotgun and shot at them
Other Facts
1. Chiseling will destroy accused’s house
2. The fence will seal off the accused’s entry/exit to the rice mill
3. Ownership of the land is under dispute
4. Aggressor-victim had a jeep parked a few steps away where there was a gun leaning
near the steering wheel

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION TOWARDS PROPERTY

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.

In the case at bar, there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property which he had
the right to resist.

REASONABLE MEANS
The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of
self-defense or defense of one's rights under paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code.
When the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack.

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

WE find, however, that the third element of defense of property is present, i.e., lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of appellant who was defending his property. As a matter of fact, there
was no provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the
noise produced by the victims and their laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to
stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all

Appellant's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for
justification are present.

credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to paragraph
6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180 (1974)
SELF-DEFENSE - ACQUITTED
5. His person or right - yes
6. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim pushed accused to the ground and began choking her – CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED
7. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Before falling, accused grabbed victim’s belt and got hold of his knife
b. Accused stabbed victim - REASONABLE
8. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. accused provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of the
husband, which is not a sufficient provocation. She even gave a valid excuse as
she needed money for her child’s medical bills Christmas had also just finished.
SCENARIO
1. Aggressor-victim caught accused out in the streets late at night.
2. AV grabbed accused and asked her where she was prostituting herself
3. Accused denied prostitution and said she was earning money for her child (Xmas)
4. AV grabbed the collar of her dress, repeated question
5. Accused “provoked” him by saying it was none of his business.
6. AV said he will kill everyone. Slapped her face twice. Nose bled.
7. AV pushed her to the ground
8. Accused held on to AV so as not to fall down. Grabbed his belt and got hold of the knife
9. AV began choking her
10. Accused stabbed him

NOT GUILTY BASED ON:

EVIDENCE
1. Single stab wound at the left lumbar region
2. Testimony from witness

LACK OF MOTIVE
The absence of such motive is important in ascertaining the truth as between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing.

CONDUCT AFTER THE OCCURRENCE

Presented herself at the police headquarters where she reported that she stabbed her husband
and surrendered the blood-stained dress she wore that night. That appellant made it clear to the
police that she stabbed her husband because he attacked her is confirmed by no less than the
prosecution witness.

REASONABLE NECESSITY
Reasonable necessity of the means employed in self-defense does not depend upon the harm
done but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury (US v. Paras).

Equally relevant is the time-honored principle: Necessitas Non habet legem. Necessity knows
no law.
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
The third element of self-defense is lack of sufficient provocation on proportionate to the
aggression, that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming self-defense.

People v. Alconga
NOT SELF-DEFENSE
1. His person or right
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim arrived at the accused’s workplace and said, “Here’s your breakfast” and
then attacked accused with a pingahan
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Accused was able to shoot victim at the chest, which resulted to the victim
running away – UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ENDED WHEN VICTIM RAN AWAY
b. Accused chased victim for a distance of 200 meters and delivered a mortal blow
at the cranium – NO LONGER REASONABLE
c. While victim was done, accused continued to hit him with a bolo - NO LONGER
REASONABLE
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. accused cheated during a game of black jack that resulted to victim losing money
– not discussed

Scene of the Crime

➢ Happened 2 days after an altercation between accused and deceased.
➢ First Stage:
o Accused was in the guardhouse, performing his duties as “home guard”.
o While accused was sitting on a bench, deceased arrived, saying “This is your breakfast”, and
swung his “pingahan”.
o Accused avoided first and second blow by hiding under the bench. Attempted to crawl away.
o While accused was still on the floor, deceased delivered a third blow that was parried by
accused’s bolo.
o Accused fired at deceased, causing deceased to stagger and fall to the ground.
o Deceased drew out his dagger. Hand to hand fight ensued.
o Deceased ran away after having sustained several wounds.
➢ Second Stage:
o Accused chased deceased and overtook him after the latter ran a distance of 200 meters.
o Accused delivered mortal bolo blow at the deceased’s cranium.
o Deceased fall face downward.
o Accused delivered many more blows while deceased was down.
o Other accused arrived and, being leader of the “home guards” placed accused under his
custody and turned him over to the proper authorities.
➢ Weapons used:
o Deceased – pingahan (piece of bamboo) and a dagger
o Accused – revolver and bolo
➢ Wounds sustained:
o Deceased – multiple wounds; mortal bolo blow at the head + bullet wound on the chest
o Accused - unscathed
Before the Crime
➢ Deceased and accused got into a fight after deceased suffered loss from a game of black
jack where accused and someone else “worked together” to win the game.
➢ Deceased was the banker.

WHEN IS THERE SELF-DEFENSE

There can be no defense where there is no aggression.

DOCTRINE SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

For a provocation to be considered sufficient, "It should be proportionate to the act committed
and adequate to stir one to its commission." (Relative proportionality)

It is therefore apparent that the Code requires for provocation to be such a mitigating
circumstance that it not only immediately precedes the act but that it also be sufficient.

Sufficient provocation, being a matter of defense, should, like any other, be affirmatively proven
by the accused.

DOCTRINE OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

But when he pursued the deceased, he was no longer acting in self defense, there being
then no more aggression to defend against, the same having ceased from the moment
the deceased took to his heels.

To find that said aggression or provocation persisted even when the deceased was already in
flight, clearly accepting defeat and no less clearly running for his life rather than evincing an
intention of returning to the fight, is more than we can sanction. It should always be
remembered that "illegal aggression" is equivalent to assault or at least threatened
assault of an immediate and imminent kind.

People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643 (1932)

SELF-DEFENSE
1. Unlawful aggression – aggressor struck accused with his fist. accused tried running
away but aggressor chased him. Accused was cornered eventually. Aggressor kept
pressing forward.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it –Accused slashed
aggressor with a bolo hitting the latter at the right shoulder (fatal). Aggressor kept
pushing forward. Was about to a draw a knife from his pocket. Accused cut latter on the
forehead above left eye. Aggressor died eventually
3. Lack of sufficient provocation - cornered. Nowhere to go. Aggressor kept pressing
forward despite the first slash.
a. justified in keeping the weapon in his hands and, as an ultimate resort, in using it
as a means for his own defense; for it would probably have been an act of
suicide to permit that weapon to pass into the hands of his assailant. He had
reasonable grounds for believing that he was in grave peril.
OTHER FACTS:
1. Deceased is bigger and stronger
 2. bad reputation – past convictions of battery and assault/physical injuries

REPUTATION OF DECEASED AS GROUND REASONABLE NECESSITY

In judging a question of this kind the reputation of the deceased for violence is pertinent, for it
tends to show that when the fatal blows were struck the accused had reasonable grounds for
believing that he was in grave peril to life or limb.

The person assaulted must, in such case, either resist with the arms that nature gave him or
with other means of defense at his disposal, short of taking life. But that rule contemplates the
situation where the contestants are in the open and the person assaulted can exercise the
option of running away. It can have no binding force in the case where the person assaulted has
retreated to the wall, as the saying is, and uses in a defensive way the only weapon at his
disposal.

People v. Luague, 62 Phil 504 (1935)

SELF-DEFENSE
1. His person or right
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim tried to rape accused
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Accused stabbed victim at the abdomen using the victim’s own knife
b. Accused surrendered herself to the authorities
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. “lured” victim – not established – contrary to how the accused would normally act
if the facts were as theorized

SCENARIO
1. Victim went to accused’s house.
2. “Accused borrowed knife” to cut her nails
3. Victim tried to take advantage of the accused.
4. Accused resisted.
5. Victim threatened accused with a knife.
6. While preparing to lie with her, victim left the knife on the floor.
7. Accused took the knife and stabbed victim in the abdomen.
8. Victim ran, jumped out of the window and fell on some stones
9. Accused surrendered herself to the authorities

SELF-DEFENSE OUT OF HONOR

"Inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, than
her very existence; this offense, unlike ordinary slander by word or deed susceptible of judicial
redress, is an outrage which impresses an indelible blot on the victim, for, as the Roman Law
says: quum chastity, once defiled, cannot be restored). It is evident that a woman who, thus
imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal
liability provided by this article and subsection since such killing cannot be considered a
crime from the moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor from
so great an outrage."
People v. Dela Cruz, 61 Phil 344 ( 1935)
SELF-DEFENSE
1. His person or right
2. Unlawful aggression
a. Somebody grabbed accused from behind without warning, dark, touched her
private parts
i. Intention was not established – but the circumstances around the incident
justified her actions
3. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
a. Used her pocket-knife – stabbed only once – no other wounds
4. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
a. surrendered herself to the authorities

MISTAKE OF FACT IN SELF-DEFENSE

We are convinced from a study of the record that the deceased did in fact grab hold of the
defendant on the night in question, and whether he intended to rape her or not, taking into
consideration that it was dark night and that the deceased grabbed her from behind without
warning and without making himself known and refused to say who he was, and in the struggle
that followed touched her private parts, and the fact that she was unable to free herself by
means of her strength alone, we are of the opinion that she was justified in making use of the
pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an attach upon her honor. Since she had no
other means of defending herself.

CRY FOR HELP

A woman in defense of her honor is justified in inflicting wounds on her assailant with a bolo
which she happens to be carrying, even though her cry for assistance might have been heard
by people near by. (United States vs . Santa Ana and Ramos)

People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil 174 (1946)

BACKGROUND FACTS
1. Victim was courting accused
2. Before the crime, victim entered accused’s bedroom at night without consent and
touched her forehead
3. Victim screamed for help
4. Nothing happened
5. Since then victim started bragging
SCENARIO
1. In the chapel; lighted with electric lights, several people, including father, barrio
lieutenant; no possibility of being raped
2. Victim sat beside accused.
3. Put his hand on accused’s upper thigh
4. Accused stabbed him at the neck with a fan knife she kept in her pocket
5. Victim dead
6. Accused voluntarily surrendered herself to authorities

NO INTENT TO KILL
Defendant and appellant further claims that she had not intended to kill the deceased but merely
wanted to punish his offending hand with her knife, as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon
him only one single wound.

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
No possibility of being raped.

US v. Bumanglang, 14 Phil 644 (1909)

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
No unlawful aggression – unsheathed bolo
There is sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself - Accused
started beating the victim without warning

CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Accused’s bundles of palay was missing
2. Found it in an inclosed field 100 meters away from his granary
3. Waited for someone to appear to see who the culprit was
4. Victim arrived and attempted to carry the palay away
5. Accused and companions assaulted victim with sticks and stabbing weapons.
6. Victim died instantly.
7. Victim was said to have committed several thefts and robberies
8. Victim was said to have a bolo, but was not used since it was sheathed - unreasonable

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
The special circumstance established by article 11 of the same code should be also considered
in favor of the accused, in view of the erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to
punish, even to excess the thief who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to work,
devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the fruits of their arduous labor.

DISPOSITIVE: Accused was still charged with homicide but w/ mitigating circumstance lowered
penalty

DISSENT: Should be justified

1. Victim was said to have a bolo, but was not used since it was sheathed – unreasonable
2. Victim was said to have committed several thefts and robberies

Unlawful aggression – stealing of palay; trespassing land

Reasonable means – victim had a bolo and had unsheathed upon being caught red-handed
Without provocation – none

Moreover, it is admitted that the defendant, Bumanglag, was upon his own land and was,
therefore, defending his habitation against a violent and wrongful invasion when the assault
upon him was made in the manner proved.

It appears, therefore, that there was not only an unlawful aggression against the defendant,
Bumanglag, personally, but also that there was a wrongful invasion of his habitation and an
attempt to commit a felony against his property.
WHY NOT JUST STOP THE AGGRESSOR?
The answer is, for the simple reason that a furious and vicious man armed with a dagger and
skilled in its use is an individual dangerous to the very extreme, and the man who seizes him
with his naked runs and the chances of his life.

It is the unquestioned law, and it should be rigorously enforced, that life can not be taken except
in necessity, but it is as unquestioned that he who comes to his assistance, is not required to do
anything which will increase his danger or enhance the opportunity of the aggressor to
accomplish his end.

Velasquez vs. People, G.R. No. 195021, 15 March 2017.

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial aggressor, the beating dealt to him by
petitioners and their co-accused was still glaringly in excess of what would have sufficed to
neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary means to repel his supposed aggression.
Petitioners thereby fail in satisfying the second requisite of self-defense and of defense of a
relative.

SCENARIO
Victim chased accused after catching having sex at the former’s property.
On the way home, accused and two others beat victim up using a stone (3x) and bamboo.
Accused and others left victim severely injured.
Victim sustained a crack skull. (drunk). Lacerated wound. Abrasions 2x. Required medical
attention for 4-6 weeks + surgery

DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
Victim was drunk. Hacking at one of the accused’s door. Other accused tried to pacify him. But
victim vented his ire on him. They simply counter-attacked.
- co-accused were relatives

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. NO INTENT TO KILL

The first requisite — unlawful aggression — is the condition sine qua non of self-defense and
defense of a relative. Unlawful aggression refers to an attack amounting to actual or imminent
threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense.

The second requisite — reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
aggression — requires a reasonable proportionality between the unlawful aggression and the
defensive response. proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests
upon the imminent danger of such injury.

The third requisite — lack of sufficient provocation — requires the person mounting a
defense to be reasonably blameless. He or she must not have antagonized or incited the
attacker into launching an assault. This also requires a consideration of proportionality.

Aguilar vs. Dep’t of Justice, G.R. No. 197522, 11 September 2013.

  Petitioner is the father of the victim Francisco Aguilar (Tetet). He filed a criminal
complaint for murder against the respondents.
 Tetet was arrested by the respondents for alleged acts of extortion and on the suspicion
that he was part of the NPA. Despite his peaceful surrender, he was maltreated: he was
hit with the butts of the respondents’ rifles, his hands were tied behind his back, then he
was placed in a military jeep and brought to the Viga River where he was gunned down
by the respondents.
DEFENSE’S VERSION
 Tetet pulled a hand grenade from Abordo, jumped out of the jeep, and moved to pull the
safety pin off the grenade. Dangupon fired upon Tetet, resulting in the latter’s death.

TC: Prosecutor dismissed the petitioner’s complaint against all respondents for lack of probable
cause. He held that the evidence shows that the shooting was done either in an act of self-
defense or defense of a stranger and in the performance of a lawful duty.

CA: affirmed

SELF-DEFENSE
1. Petitioner’s version of the facts was corroborated by witnesses, which puts into question
the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of Tetet and the lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of Dangupon, the motive of Tetet's companions, and the
lawfulness of the act.
2. Tetet was handcuffed, which begs the question as to how he could have stolen the
grenade.
3. The medical certificate shows that the shots were fired at a close distance, putting into
question the necessity of the means employed to prevent Tetet’s supposed unlawful
aggression and whether the injury committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WAIVED

When the accused admits killing the victim but invokes a justifying circumstance, the
constitutional presumption of innocence is waived and the burden of proving the existence of
such circumstance shifts to the accused.

Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, 08 February 1989.

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
Unlawful aggression – victim assaulted him twice with a knife – almost hitting his stomach
1. Evidence: knife + raincoat – but failed to present it in court
Reasonable necessity of the means
2. wound indicate close range shooting (6 inches)
3. accused is right handed. Entry of the wound was below victim’s right eye. Should have
been left.
4. It is not believable for an officer of the law, confronting a suspected criminal showing no
signs of surrender, seeing him armed and potentially dangerous, not to have drawn his
holstered service revolver ahead of time in order to effect the arrest or to protect his
person against a clear and imminent danger
SCENARIO
Victim (extortionist) came out from behind the tree with a knife. Tried to stab accused. Accused
evaded the blow. Knife reached stomach. Victim tried to stab accused again. But accused
pulled out his gun and fired at victim. Brought victim to hospital. Knife as evidence. Victim died.

Wound:
1. Point of entry below the right eye
2. Trajecting upward and backward
3. Burning and smudging of tissues surround wound – indicates the muzzle of the gun was
fired not more than 6 inches from the victim’s cheek

Guilty of homicide

Flores vs. People, G.R. No. 181354, 27 February 2013.

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – victim fired at accused and aimed his gun again
REASONABLE MEANS - continuous shooting by the accused which caused the fatal gunshot
wound were not necessary and reasonable
PROVOCATION - accused asked victim to save their shots for the following procession

SCENARIO
Fiesta. Victim and companions were drinking. Accused and his companions were doing rounds
as members of the civil service unit. Gunshots from the victim’s house. Accused asked victim to
save their shots for the following procession. Victim drew his magnum pistol and poked it direct
at the accused’s chest. Fired. Parried but accused got hit on the right shoulder. Victim aimed his
gun again. Wrestled. Accused was shot at the left hand. Accused instinctively swung his baby
armalite and squeezed its trigger. Hit victim. (continued shooting at victim). Accused fled.

WOUNDS:
4 gunshot wounds; abdomen, buttocks, right flank, left shoulder
Died of intra-abdominal hemorrhage

EVIDENCE
1. accused claims victim shot him at a distance of about 1 meter. It is quite incredible that
the bullet did not exit through the accused’s shoulder. If he were hit on the part of the
ball and socket, it would have been impossible for it to have not hit any of the bones
located on that area.
2. accused did not mention anything about a bullet remaining on his shoulder
3. the accused surprisingly did not bother to secure the x-ray plate or any medical records
from the hospital to support his case of self-defense.
4. T-shirt presented had a hole apparently from a bullet. Blood stain is concentrated only
on an area circular in shape. Within 5 hours from when he was shot to when his wounds
were treated, the blood would have supposedly naturally dripped down to the hem.
5. the victim arrived 11:00pm, 1 hour before the time of the incident thus it is very possible
that the victim was not yet drunk when the incident occurred. The victim, familiar and
experienced with guns previously worked as a policeman. The court finds it difficult to
 accept how the victim could have missed when he shot at the victim as such close
range.
6. it hardly inspires belief for the accused who claims to have allegedly unlocked, with such
ease, the armalite rifle, which he claims to have no experience handling, while his right
shoulder was wounded and he was grappling with the victim.

Granting for the sake of argument that unlawful aggression was initially staged by Jesus, the
same ceased to exist when Jesus was first shot on the shoulder and fell to the ground. At that
point, the perceived threat to Flores' life was no longer attendant. The latter had no reason to
pump more bullets on Jesus' abdomen and buttocks.

When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or
wound the original aggressor.

Nacnac vs. People, G.R. No. 191913, 21 March 2012.

SELF-DEFENSE
1. Unlawful aggression
a. Victim hold his firearm tucked on his right waist (cal. 45)
b. Accused fired warning shot (AM-16 armalite)
c. Victim drew his firearm and pointed it at accused
2. Reasonable means
a. wounds - lone
b. weapons used - gun
c. physical condition/character of aggressor and person who invoked self-defense –
past history; knew how to use gun; disobedience, drunken state; failure to stand
down after warning shot
d. place/occasion
3. As gleaned from the findings of the trial court, petitioner gave the victim a lawful order
and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunk victim. Absent from the
shooting incident was any evidence on petitioner sufficiently provoking the victim prior to
the shooting.

The following circumstances negate a conviction for the killing of the victim (exception to the GR
where mere drawing of gun cannot be considered unlawful aggression):
1. The drunken state of the victim;
2. The victim was also a police officer who was professionally trained at shooting;
3. The warning shot fired by petitioner was ignored by the victim;
4. A lawful order by petitioner was ignored by the victim; and
5. The victim was known for his combative and drunken behavior.

SCENARIO
accused-appellant, the victim, and a number of other police officers were on duty
the victim and SPO1 Eduardo Basilio took the patrol tricycle from the station grounds
Accused-appellant Nacnac saw and stopped the two from leaving using the tricycle
Victim needed the tricycle to settle a disagreement at a local bar
Accused-appellant still refused to let them leave
victim was still needed at the station, and because he was drunk, he should stay in the station
Victim yelled “Iyot ni inam kapi” (“Coitus of your mother, cousin!”) and alighted from the tricycle
and drew out his gun
Accused fired upward as warning shot
Victim still drew his gun
Accused shot at victim on the head. Instant death. Surrendered.

OTHER FACTS
Victim had past history of violence

IMMINENT DANGER
Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to
conclude that one's life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon,
or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the
intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing
the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression.

Pointing one’s gun at target = not act of unlawful aggression

INEBRIATED STATE
Petitioner had fuller control of his physical and mental faculties in view of the victim's drunken
state. It concluded that the likelihood of the victim committing unlawful aggression in "his
inebriated state" was "very slim."

People vs. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, 23 October 2013

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
1. unlawful aggression
The aggression initially staged by the father was not of the continuous kind as it was no longer
present when the accused-appellant injured the father. Grabbing bolo from father – aggression
ceased.
Hence, the accused-appellant was no longer acting in self-defense, when he, despite having
already disarmed his father, ran after the latter for about 20 m and then stabbed him.
2. reasonable necessity of the means
The accused-appellant's claim of self-defense is further negated by the fatal incision on the
father's neck that almost decapitated his head.
3. Provocation

RETALIATION v. SELF-DEFENSE
Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him; while in self-defense the
aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.

BEFORE SCENARIO
accused-appellant had a drinking spree with his two brothers
appellant saw victim standing at the doorway with a long bolo
brothers tried to hold victim back but latter got free
argument ensued
accused-appellant and his brothers took their father to his nipa hut about 500 meters away
CRIME SCENE
accused-appellant proceeded home
met victim along a pathway
The accused-appellant first remarked: "Father, what are the words that you uttered?" to which
Apolinario responded, "It is better if one of us will perish."
Apolinario then instantaneously hacked the accused-appellant with along bolo hitting him
twice on the head for which he sustained a 5- centimeter long and scalp-deep incised
wound with fracture of the underlying bone and another 5-cm long incised wound on the
frontal right portion of his head
The accused-appellant fell to his knees as Apolinario delivered another blow which the
former was able to parry by raising his left arm. The accused-appellant was wounded on the
left 3rd interdigital space posterior to his palm.
Accused got hold of the bolo and hacked victim several times. Lost count due to feeling dizzy.
WOUNDS: 2 head wounds; scalp-deep incision with fracture; 1 hand wound in between
fingers; Hospitalized for 6 days

SISTER’S STORY
The accused went to their house carrying a long bolo and a scythe.
▪ Accused to witness: “will you join the killing spree today...”
The father fled but the son caught up and attacked.
accused-appellant then hacked the unarmed Apolinario on the right side of his head using the
bolo
Apolinario fell down and the accused appellant finished him off by slashing his neck with the
scythe
WOUNDS: 2 fatal wounds that almost decapitated his head; 2 incised wounds on his
neck and left forearm; 2 lacerations on his fingers; instant death

OTHER FACTS
The accused (son) and victim (father) have a strained relationship.

Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the

accused that he committed the criminal act.

STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF GREAT EVIL)

Elements of State of Necessity/Avoidance of Great Evil

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

People v. Ricohermoso, 56 SCRA 431 (1974)

NOT APPLICABLE
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exist
a. Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito.
His malicious intention in disabling Marianito was to avoid Marianito’s
interference in the assault of the other two assailants.
SCENARIO
Victim owned the land.
Passed by accused. Asked to taste the palay. Promised to go back and get the palay.
Returned w/ wife and son who was bringing a rifle. But accused was hostile. Refused to give
palay. Accused’s father was there. And accused’s brother in law was there.
Accused unsheathed bolo.
Father had an axe.
Victim pleaded.
Accused stabbed vctim on the neck
Father hacked victim at the back while latter was on the ground.
Accused’s brother in law grabbed the son from behind. Locked his forearms around his neck.
son unconscious. Woke up. Rifle gone. Victim was dying. Eventually died.
WOUNDS of VICTIM: 3 incisions; neck (fatal), waist, back (fatal); 1 hematoma : forearm
WOUNDS OF SON: abrasions on the neck & abdomen; laceration on foot; 1-9 days
without medical treatment

DEFENSE
Victim unsheathed his bolo first.
Accused wounded on the wrist,
Son tried to shoot him but was disabled by bro-in-law

PARAGRAPH 4 NOT APPLICABLE

Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or
injury (par. 4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito de Leon
from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. His reliance on that justifying circumstance is
erroneous. The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting
Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who were the aggressors, was designed to insure the killing
of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants.
- his act contributed to the conspiracy of the commission of a felony
It is doubtful if the assailants could have consummated the killing of Geminiano, without
their suffering any injury, if Marianito had not been rendered helpless by appellant Juan
Padernal.

Ty v. People, 439 SCRA220 (2004)

NOT APPLICABLE
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
a. In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated.
2. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
a. greater injury feared should not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor
b. issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay her
mother's hospital bills
3. there are no other practical or less harmful means of preventing it
a. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
crime.
 b. Give jewelry or other forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her
obligation.

FACTS:
Petitioner’s mother was confined in hospital. Incurred hospital bill of more than Php 1 million
pesos
Petitioner drew several postdated checks against metrobank payable to the bank. (30,000 each)
Dishonored due to insufficient funds
Complainant. Demand letter. Unheeded. Filed seven information subject of the instant case
Ty claimed that she only issued the checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury”. She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain release for her
mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly treated and would not discharge unless the
hospital bills are paid.

Elements for UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

1. existence of uncontrollable fear
a. fear that her mother's health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane
treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide - speculative
fear; not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law.
2. fear must be real and imminent
3. fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT

Elements under Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right

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 be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office

People v. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688 (2000)

LAWFUL DUTY - NO
1. offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty
a. fatal shot in the head while victim was slumped down – overdoing it &
unnecessary
b. multiple shots fired
c. should have ceased firing as soon as victim fell to the ground
i. no longer a threat
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right or office

SCENARIO
Victim was naked. High fever. Armed. Approaching the accused.
Accused was a police called by the victim’s bro-in-law
Warning shot. Told to put weapon down or they will shoot him.
Victim retorted and continued advancing
Accused fired when victim was 3 meters away from them (multiple times)
While victim was on the ground, accused shot him in the head.

The right to kill an offender is not absolute, and may be used only as a last resort, and under
circumstances indicating that the offender cannot otherwise be taken without bloodshed. The
law does not clothe police officers with authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill. It may
be true that police officers sometimes find themselves in a dilemma when pressured by a
situation where an immediate and decisive, but legal, action is needed. However, it must be
stressed that the judgment and discretion of police officers in the performance of their duties
must be exercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits. In the
absence of a clear and legal provision to the contrary, they must act in conformity with the
dictates of a sound discretion, and within the spirit and purpose of the law.

CHARGED WITH MURDER

Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324 (2005)

LAWFUL DUTY - YES
1. offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty
a. protect a stranger’s life
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right or office
a. Excessive force justified when there is imminent danger to the policeman’s
life or stranger’s.
b. No way of escape except for the rear end where victim had jumped
c. Sitting ducks
d. Immediate and spontaneous reaction to imminent danger
e. One shot first before successive shots

SCENARIO
Accused (police) and victim (suspected robber) were on a jeep. Opened rear end. No
door/opening between compartments. Victim sat between accused and another officer. Victim
grabbed gun (armalite) of the other officer. Jumped out of the jeep. Accused shot at victim. No
warning. Fired 4 more shots. Victim did not fire any. 3 mortal wounds: back of head, left side of
chest, lower back. Dead.

SELF-DEFENSE IN FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

While self-defense and performance of duty are two distinct justifying circumstances, self-
defense or defense of a stranger may still be relevant even if the proper justifying circumstance
in a given case is fulfillment of duty.
Excessive force justified when there is imminent danger to the policeman’s life or
stranger’s.
Fulfillment of duty – protect a stranger’s life

NECESSARY FORCE
Armalite is a formidable weapon
No way of escape except for the rear end where victim had jumped
Sitting ducks
Grabbing the gun – intent was more than to flee – unlawful aggression
Warning shots not necessary when there is imminent danger already
Immediate and spontaneous reaction to imminent danger
One shot first before successive shots

ACQUITTED of homicide. At most, gross negligence lng for not handcuffing victim

People v. Delima, 46 Phil 738 (1922)

LAWFUL DUTY – YES
1. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office
a. Trying to capture the escaped convict
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
a. Victim did not surrender and had no right to commit assault and disobedience
with a weapon
b. Policeman had to resort to such an extreme means

SCENARIO
Victim was an escaped convict. Accused (police) found victim. Victim was armed with a pointed
piece of bamboo shaped like a lance. Tried to hit accused. Dodged. Fired his revolver. Missed
victim. Victim ran. Accused continued shooting. Hit victim.

NO SURRENDER OF ESCAPED CONVICT

That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault and
disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such an
extreme means, which although it prove to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.

People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 (1943)

LAWFUL DUTY - NO
1. offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty
a. there were ordered to capture wanted man dead or alive
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right or office
a. victim offered no resistance / was sleeping / defenseless
b. impatience/anxiety, they exceeded their fulfillment of their duty
c. made no inquiry of his identity
d. did not have to fire multiple shots

SCENARIO
Accused were policemen ordered to catch a convict “dead or alive”. Got information about the
whereabouts of the wanted man. Bailarina (irene). Went there. Victim was asleep with back
against the door. Accused fired at him successively. Victim was not the wanted man.

Notoriety rightly supplies a basis for redoubled official alertness and vigilance; it never can
justify precipitate action at the cost of human life.
GUILTY OF MURDER W/ MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Yapyuco vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, 25 June 2012

LAWFUL DUTY - NO
1. offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty
a. to maintain peace and order from NPAs
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such right or office
a. find incomprehensible petitioners' quick resolve to use their firearms when in fact
there was at least one other vehicle at the scene — the Sarao jeepney owned by
Yapyuco — which they could actually have used to pursue their suspects whom
they supposedly perceived to be in flight
b. open fire at the people inside the jeepney

Accused are law enforcers who mistakenly thought that the victims were NPAs. Victims were in
fact just employees of San Miguel Corp. While driving on the way home after a night of drinking,
the victims encountered the accused along the road. The accused signaled them to stop but
they didn’t. So the accused fired warning shots to which the victims accelerated instead. At this
point, the accused started firing at the fleeing vehicle resulting to the death of one of the victims
and injuries to the rest.

ABSENCE OF INTENT OR NEGLIGENCE

The justification is based on the complete absence of intent and negligence on the part of the
accused, inasmuch as guilt of a felony connotes that it was committed with criminal intent or
with fault or negligence.

WHEN IS IT JUSTIFIED:
1. secure or detain offender
2. overcome his resistance
3. prevent his escape
4. recapture
5. protect self/stranger from bodily harm

GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

Angcaco v. People (2002)

LAWFUL DUTY - NO
1. offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty
a. No evidence was presented by the defense to prove that deceased attempted to
prevent petitioner and his fellow officers from arresting the barangay captain
b. no clear evidence as to how the deceased was shot
c. captain was not in his house.
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of
such right or office
a. killing of the deceased was not a necessary consequence of the arrest to be
made on the barangay captain.
Accused were policemen serving a warrant of arrest. Came to the house. Introduced
themselves. Ordered everyone inside the house to come out. Deceased was not the one who
was being arrested. Just the nephew. Deceased came out. Flanked by accused who were
armed with armalite. Armalites were pointed at him. Shots rang out killing deceased.

Accused alleged that deceased tried to attack the commander with a bolo/knife.

WOUNDS: 3 gunshot wounds: ribs, chest and abdomen

Deceased was drunk
Cause of death – gunshot wounds

NOT SELF-DEFENSE
In this case, it is contended that the victim, who was armed with a bolo, approached the
commander menacingly. But, there is no other competent evidence to corroborate this self-
serving claim.

Petitioner's own testimony suffer from inconsistencies and improbabilities on material points:
1. No reason for victim to attack
2. Victim was not wanted by the police
3. Victim was drunk so he could have easily been overpowered by
the police without shooting
4. petitioner was prevaricating

GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

Elements:
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

People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566 (1955)

APPLICABLE
1. that an order has been issued by a superior
a. received express orders from the Headquarters
i. - headquarters authorized its resumption
ii. - HQ sent an observer
iii. - death sentence was sent to HQ for review
iv. - deceased was not executed until its return
2. that such order must be for some lawful purpose
a. Deceased was executed after being found guilty of espionage
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
a. There is no proof that Beronilla actually received the radiogram
b. without any fault/negligence on their part
c. no criminal intent established
DOCTRINE
Must be without intent or negligence when acting on orders.

SCENARIO
Deceased was executed after being found guilty of espionage. Accused were the clerk of jury;
the one who ordered the execution; the executioner; priest who performed the last rites.Charged
with conspiring and confederating in deceased’s execution. Roxas’ amnesty was expired.

Argued: did the execution in pursuant to the express orders of the Headquarters
Prosecution – radiogram of colonel calling attention to the illegality of the deceased’s conviction

There is no proof that Beronilla actually received the radiogram. The Court concludes that Lt.
Col. Arnold failed to transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla. Thus, the charge of criminal
conspiracy to kill Borjal must be rejected as the accused had no need to conspire against a man
sentenced to death.

The arrest and trial of Borjal were made upon the express orders of higher command.
- headquarters authorized its resumption
- HQ sent an observer
- death sentence was sent to HQ for review
- deceased was not executed until its return

Defendants acted upon orders of superior officers that they, as military subordinates, could
not question, and obeyed in good faith, without being aware of their illegality, without any
fault/negligence on their part. The Court cannot thus say that criminal intent has been
established.

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)

APPLICABLE
1. that an order has been issued by a superior
a. Ordered by then President Marcos
i. Verbal order
ii. memorandum
2. that such order must be for some lawful purpose
a. On its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of
an obligation illegal – GOOD FAITH
b. IN reality – malversation of funds
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

GOOD FAITH in following order which the accused thought was lawful.

FACTS:
 Petitioner caused the release of P55 million of Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA) funds (3 withdrawals)
 Ordered by then President Marcos (first was a verbal order; second was a
memorandum)
o This was in pursuant to a certain memorandum
  To be paid in cash directly to the president’s office
 Delivered cash to private secretary – no receipt
 Third delivery, there was a receipt
 Petitioner and companion was charged with malversation of funds

Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated from
the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official
of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the
memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact,
coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question

HE did so in good faith. There was nothing in the memorandum that may invite suspicion. No
question of the lawfulness of the order. No reason to believe that the 55m was indeed part of a
due and demandable debt. So even if the order was not. Tabuena was not aware of the
illegality. Did so in good faith.

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability – The

following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a
lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act
which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order
his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established
for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
(Paragraph 2 and 3 on the exempting circumstance of minority is deemed
repealed by RA No. 9344, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Law. Minority as an exempting circumstance is now found in
Section 6 of RA No. 9344.)
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

INSANITY AND IMBECILITY

In Re: M’Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718
FACTS
 Petitioner used a pistol charged with gun powdered and leaden bullet which caused one
mortal wound that Drummond would die from 2 months later.
 He claimed to have been of an unsound mind when he committed the act.
 Medical evidence
o morbid delusions;
o carried him away beyond the power of his own control, and left him no
perception;
o not capable of exercising any control over acts during his delusions
 that it was of the nature of of the disease with which the petitioner was
affected, to go on gradually until it had reached a climax, when it burst
forth with irresistible intensity;
 that a man might go on for years quietly, though at the same time under
its influence, but would not all at once break out into the most extravagant
and violent paroxysms.
 Witnesses said he looked sane

ACT COMMITTED UNDER INSANE DELUSION

The person is nevertheless punishable according to the nature of the crime committed if he
knew at the time of committing such crime that he was acting contrary to law.

PRESUMPTION OF SANITY
Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be
responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to
establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the
committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason,
from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he
did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

DELUSION AS TO EXISTING FACTS

He must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the facts with respect to
which the delusion exists were real.

MEDICAL EXPERT TESTIMONY

The medical man, under the circumstances supposed, cannot in strictness be asked his
opinion in the terms above stated, because each of the questions involves the determination
of the truth of the facts deposed to, which it is for the jury to decide, and the questions are
not mere questions upon a matter of science, in which case such evidence is admissible.
But where the facts are admitted or not disputed, and the question becomes substantially one of
science only, it may be convenient to allow the question to be put in that general form, though
the same cannot be insisted on as a matter of right.

People vs. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998)

FACTS:
Accused raped his two daughters.
Drunk/intoxicated at both instances
Warned not to talk about
First case: consummated
Second: “frustrated” – penis did not penetrate; 2nd was attempted – in pain; resisted – 12

INTOXICATION NOT INSANITY

For such insanity to be taken as an exempting circumstance, there must be complete
deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused acted without the
least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not preclude
imputability.

Elements of Insanity
1. Complete deprivation of intelligence
2. Absence of discernment
3. Not mere abnormality

People v. Madarang. 332 SCRA 99 (2000)

FACTS:
Accused and deceased were married.
Deceased and accused had a fight – accused was jealous of another man
Stabbed deceased with a bolo
Started shouting and crying
Emerged from the house holding the bolo
No peculiar behavior suggesting of any mental illness before the incident
Claims to have no recollection of the incident

Tests to Determine Insanity Under the Law

1. M’Naghten rule of 1843
2. “irresistible impulse” test
3. Durham “product” test in 1954
4. ALI “substantial capacity”

Elements of Insanity
1. Complete deprivation of intelligence
a. Without reason
2. Absence of discernment
a. Total deprivation of the will
3. Not mere abnormality

OPINION TESTIMONY FOR INSANITY

1. Witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused or qualified expert (psychiatrist) –
mother-in-law
2. Proof of insanity must exist before or during the commission of the offense –
schizophrenia AFTER the incident; no signs BEFORE the crime
CONVICTED OF PARRICIDE

People v. Bonoan; 64 Phil 87 (1937)

FACTS:
Accused stabbed deceased.
During arrest, policeman asked why: 1) deceased owed him money and would not pay; 2) he
had been watching deceased for 2 days to kill him
Years before incident, accused had been confined in the insane department of the hospital 2x
Assistant alienist of Psychiatric hospital – diagnosed him with manic depressive psychosis
Another diagnosis affirmed the first – personality lacks control

Convicted of murder – insanity was only occasional and intermittent

THREE THEORIES FOR PROVING INSANITY

1. Insanity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt—must show that person was
insane at the time of the commission of the criminal act to be acquitted on the
ground of insanity (direct or circumstantial)
2. Insanity is not to be established beyond reasonable doubt—affirmative verdict of insanity
is to be governed by a preponderance of evidence
3. Prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt

All persons suffering of dementia praecox are to be regarded as having mental disease to a
degree that disqualifies them for legal responsibility for their actions because the mind appears
deteriorated, and the person has no control of their acts.

According to a professor of forensic medicine, in the type of dementia praecox, the crime is
usually preceded by much complaining and planning. In these people, homicidal attacks are
common because of delusions that they are being interfered with sexually or that their property
is being taken.

Defendant was insane at the commission of the crime = police’s doubts + hospital reports (+
past admissions to hospitals)

People v. Taneo, 58 Phil 255 (1933)

FACTS
Taneo (defendant) went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room
bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounder her in the
abdomen.
- wife died
- unborn child died
Attacked 2 more people
Tried to attack a third but got wounded in the process
*Day before. Had a fight with some people over a glass of tuba, who invited him to come down
and fight, but was stopped by wife. Severe stomachache, woke up the next day to commit the
crime
Had a dream that one of the two was trying to stab him with a bolo
In the dream, his wife was said to be wounded
Enemies multiplied around him

Loved his wife.

No dispute with the other 2 victims
ACTS WHILE IN A DREAM
Court’s conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he is
charged, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.

Expert witness, is also of the same opinion. The doctor stated that with everything considered,
the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in his
right mind.

People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658 (1950)

FACTS
Stabbed wife (no previous quarrel or provocation)
Right lung, hemorrhage
Carried her up to the house; laid her on the floor; lied down beside her until they were found
Admitted to killing – jealousy with half-brother; suspected affair
Guards reported peculiar behavior:
o Removed his clothes and go stark naked in front of others
o Remained silent and indifferent
o Refused to take a bath and wash his clothes until forced
o Sang in chorus with fellow prisoners or even alone without being asked
o When his cell door would open, would suddenly dart towards the prison compound in
an attempt to regain his liberty
Imbecile daw sya

FEEBLEMINDED NOT IMBECILITY

Elements of Imbecility
1. Deprived completely of reason (intelligence)
2. Deprived completely of freedom of will (discernment)
3. Not mere abnormality of his mental faculties
*at the commission of the crime

PRESUMPTION OF VOLUNTARINESS
Acts penalized by law are always reputed to be voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that a
person acted unconsciously, in order to relieve him from liability, on the basis of his mental.
condition, unless his insanity and absence of will are proved."

As to the strange behaviour of the accused during his confinement, assuming that it was not
feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or
eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife.

According to the evidence, during his marriage of about 16 years, he has not done anything or
conducted himself in anyway so as to warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile.
1. Dutifully raised his children
2. Supported his family
3. Maintained his children in school
JEALOUSY COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS IMBELICITY W/OUT PROPER EVIDENCE

CONVICTED OF PARRICIDE

People vs. Roa, G.R. No. 225599, 22 March 2017.

FACTS:
The accused was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2001. He stopped medicating in 2005 due to
financial constraints.
Day of incident, accused exhibited unusual behavior
1. Unusually silent
2. Refused to bathe
3. Quarreled wither mother when prompted
Accused stabbed victim while latter was passing.
Wound: left lower back
Weapon: bolo
Cause of death: multiple stab wounds
Accused fled. Surrendered the weapon when poilce came.
Did not deny

The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must relate to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged.
1. the testimony of the doctor to the effect that accused-appellant was suffering from
undifferentiated schizophrenia stems from her psychiatric evaluation of the accused
about five years after the crime was committed.
2. testimony of the uncle merely failed to shed light on accused- appellant's mental
condition immediately prior to, during, and immediately after accused-appellant
stabbed the victim (only the possible underlying reasons behind mental condition)

DISCHARGE FROM HOSPITAL = PRESUMPTION OF SANITY/RECOVERY

While the accused was previously confined in a mental institution, being properly discharged
indicates an improvement in his mental condition. Absent contrary evidence, he is presumed
sane.

REASONABLE TIME TO ASCERTAIN INSANITY

The dates of the diagnoses are too far apart from the commission of the offense as to
preclude the possibility that the accused was conscious of his actions in 2007.

There are circumstances surrounding the incident that negate a complete absence of
intelligence on the part of accused appellant when he attacked the victim.
1. Surprised victim – attack from behind
2. Fled after stabbing – indicate that he knew it was wrong
3. Voluntarily turned himself over to the police
CONVICTED OF MURDER

People vs. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, 17 March 2004.

FACTS
Victim 1 – lying on a bench
Accused started stabbing him on the chest several times
Victim 1 able to run to neighbors and got to the hospital – died 15 minutes later
15 minute interval
Victim 2 – walking near the so called “lover’s lane”
Accused emerged from where he was hiding and stabbed victim 2 several times

Weapon: knife
Denied that he was there during the two incidents
Was just inside his house
Interview with sister
1. Had history of inability to sleep
2. Talk irrelevantly
3. Was brought to the national center for mental health (2x – 1 for follow up) – out-patient
4. Cannot continue treatment in manila – referred to a different hospital nearer them
5. Got injected with medicine but had to stop medication and treatment
Findings:
6. Psychotic before and during commission of crime
7. Suffers from schizophrenia

Thus, the vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts, by means of which we
read the thoughts, motives, and emotions of a person, and then determine whether the acts
conform to the practice of people of sound mind.

TWO TESTS (People v. Rafanan, Jr)

1. Test of cognition – deprivation of intelligence
2. Test of volition – deprivation of freedom of will

EVIDENCE OF INSANITY – ruled as mere abnormalities

1. Stare silently at lady boarders
2. No motive to kill
3. Eyes reddish before incident
4. Angry
5. Talk to himself, laugh, shout, utter bad words, or just quiet
6. Wear barong tagalog

Symptoms only reappeared after crime

No supporting medical data to expert testimony
Behavior during trial was attentive and well-behaved
Diagnosis only came up during the trial and not before

People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, 19 June 2000.

FACTS:
During religious celebration
Accused sat on bishop chair
Deceased, security guard, asked him to vacate the chair
Tapped accused’s hand with his night stick
Accused stabbed deceased on the left throat, stabbed him again but deceased parried
Accused went up to the mic and said “no one can beat me here” then returned to the chair
Police officer arrived and told accused to raise his hand. Complied. About to pick up knife but
accused started wrestling him.
Deceased died in the hospital. 2 stab wounds. Cut pulmonary vessel
Was confined in a mental hospital 4 days a year before incident – schizophrenia – paranoid type
Record showed accused was being referred for admission after relapse

Happened in 1994-1997

INSANITY DURING COUR PROCEEDINGS

The issue of the accused's "present insanity" or insanity at the time of the court proceedings is
separate and distinct from his criminal responsibility at the time of commission of the act. The
defense of insanity in a criminal trial concerns the defendant's mental condition at the time of
the crime's commission.

To ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive
evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period both before and after that time.

A person's thoughts, motives, and emotions may be evaluated only by outward acts to
determine whether these conform to the practice of people of sound mind. If the mental
examination on accused-appellant had been promptly and properly made, it may have served a
dual purpose by determining both his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the
offense.

MINORITY

RPC, Art. 80
RA 9344 Sections 6 & 58
Pres. Dec. No. 603, Arts. 189 at seq.
Rule on Commitment of Children (A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC)
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

People v. Doquena, 68 Phil 580 (1939)

FACTS:
Accused was exactly 13 years, 9 months and 5 days old at the commission of the crime

DISCERNMENT DEFINED
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor
under fifteen years of age but over nine who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

DETERMINATION OF DISCERNMENT
Such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances accorded by the records in each case relating to the minor:
1. Appearance
2. Attitude
3. Comportment
 4. Behavior
*Before, during, and after the commission of the act
*During trial

Doqueña: accused was a 7th grade pupil and was one of the brightest in his intermediate school
and was even captain of a company of the cadet corps, during the time he was a student he
always had excellent marks. This worked AGAINST his favor.

Llave v. People 488 SCRA 376 (2006)

FACTS:
Accused/petitioner was 12 years old - rape
Victim was 7 years old

Discernment to be considered
Accused must be under 15 but over 9 years of age.

EXPANDED DEFINITION OF DISCERNMENT

1. mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
2. fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act

ACCIDENT

People vs. Castillo, 526 SCRA 215

Target practice story w/ bow and arrows. Drunk. Not sure who shot the wife

Essential elements for accident as exempting circumstance

1. lawful act – using deadline sling and arrow not lawful
2. with due care
3. causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. without fault or intent of causing it – petitioner showed intent to kill through overt acts
a. please for forgiveness implied admission of guilt – thus deliberate and not
accident

Pomoy v. People, 439 SCRA 439 (2004)

People v. Agliday, 367 SCRA 273 (2001)
US v. Tanedo, 15 Phil 196 (1910)
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)

IRRESISTABLE FORCE/UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

Elements for UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

1. existence of uncontrollable fear
a. fear that her mother's health might deteriorate further due to the inhumane
treatment of the hospital or worse, her mother might commit suicide - speculative
fear; not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by law.
 2. fear must be real and imminent
3. fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

People v. Lising, 285 SCRA 595 (1998)

People v. Elicanal, 35 Phil 209 (1916)
US v. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350 (1905)
US v. Exaltacion, 3 Phil 339 (1905)
People v. Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993)

INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSES

US v. Vincentillo, 19 Phil 118 (1911)

People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530 (1936)