Lecture justifying circumstance

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Lecture justifying circumstance

LECTURER: PO2 Patrick MARz avelin


ARTICLE 11 of Revised penal codea. Defense of oneself, of relatives, or strangers;b. State of necessity c Fulfillment of dutyd.Obedience of superior order

Self-defense a.Unlawful aggression;b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and c.Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himselfINCLUDES : Defense of life,chastity, property and honor.

Unlawful aggression?Unlawful Aggression is the primordial requisites which must at all time be present. When unlawful aggression is absent, there is no self-defense.

Unlawful aggression?It must be actual,sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.The accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression.Unlawful aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself or of others being defended and not imagined threat.

Unlawful aggression?Unlawful aggression must be real or atleast imminent.Real aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon such as to cause injury or danger to life or personal safety.Aggression is imminent if an attack is impending or at the point of happening.

Unlawful aggression?When the aggression no longer exist,such as when the aggressor ran away after the attack or when the defender was able to wrest the weapon from the aggressor, there is no need for self-defense.The person defending himself must stop for when aggression ceased and he still continued to attack, HE THEN BECOMES THE AGGRESSOR.

Reasonable necessityPeople v Gutual - It does not imply commendurability between the means of the attack and defense- the law requires a rational equivalence which is determined by the emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense. The Proportionateness thereof does not defend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury.

Reasonable necessityUS v Mojica BEFORE retreat to the wall- which makes it duty of a person assailed to retreat as far as he can before he meets the assault with force.

NOW- Stand ground when in the right which now applies when the aggressor is armed with a weapon and is especially more liberal if the person attacked is a peace officer in the performance of duty.

Reasonable necessityIn defense of Chastity, there must be imminent or immediate danger of rape to justify killing. If it were only acts of lasciviousness, killing is an unreasonable means. Intent to rape must be present.Slander may be a necessary means to repel slander. But it must not be more than needed to defend oneself from the defamatory remarks.

Defense of property

People v Narvaez April 20,1983In defense of property, killing is not justified.Exception: There must be , in addition, the necessity to save another life.-If the aggression is on property, even if there was no attack on the defender or owner or possessor, defense is proper but not to the extent of killing the aggression, otherwise the means used to repel or prevent the aggression will not be reasonable.

Doctrine of self-helpArticle 429 of New Civil Code provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose , he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

Lack of sufficient provocation?It shows that there may have been provocation but it should not be sufficient and it must not immediately precede the act. It is not enough that the provocative act be just unreasonable or annoying.

Lack of sufficient provocation?Cano v. people Gr No. 155258 Oct 2003a.No provocation at all was given to the aggressor; b.Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient;c. Even if the provacation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself;d.When given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggressor.

Defense of relatives

REQUISITES :Unlawful AggressionReasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent and repel the unlawful aggressionIn case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the person defending had no part therein

Defense of strangers Unlawful AggressionReasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent and repel the unlawful aggression.Person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motives.NOTE: Defense of relatives beyond the fourth degree of consiguinity is defense of stranger.

State of necessity REQUISITES:The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.NOTE: The state of necessity must not be caused by the negligence or violation of the law of the actor otherwise this benefit cannot be invoked.

Fulfillement of dutyREQUISITES:The offender acted in the performance of duty or lawful exercise of a right or office;The injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequences of the due performance such as right or office.

Fulfillment of dutyGerman Mngt and Services Inc V. Court of Appeals177 SCRA 495.Under the doctrine of self help in Article 249 of the Civil Code justifies the act of the owner or lawful possessor of a thing to use force necessary to protect his proprietary or possessory rights. He must however exercise this right at the very moment that he is being deprived of his property. When possessioni has already been lost, he must resort to judicial process in reclaiming his property.

Obedience to superior order

REQUISITES :An order has been issued by a superior.The order is for a legal purpose;The means used to carry out such order is lawful.

Obedience to superior orderTabuena vs Sandiganbayan HELD : Even if the order of the superior is illegal, if it appears to be legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable.