Last week’s edition discussed about the different circumstances that affect criminal liability. One of which is the justifying circumstance as enumerated under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. In the eyes of the law, in case a justifying circumstance is attendant there is, no criminal and no crime was committed.
The most known justifying circumstance is certainly the defense of oneself or self-defense. In this week’s edition, the justifying circumstance of self-defense will be the center of our discussion – what are its element and when can it be invoked.
The essential elements of self-defense are the following: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. To invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.[1]
While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense; if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis. [2]
Unlawful aggression manifests in various forms. It cannot be pigeonholed to scenarios where there are dangerous weapons involved. Persistent, reckless, and taunting fist blows can equally cause grave danger and harm. To a discriminating mind, the imminence of unlawful aggression is obscured by the instinct of self-preservation.[3]
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing the right hand to the hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.[4]
Unlawful aggression exists if persons invoking self-defense believe, in due exercise of their reason, that their lives or limbs are in danger. The guilt of the accused should depend upon the circumstances as they reasonably appear to the accused. The circumstances as the accused perceived them at the time of the incident, not as others perceived them, should be the bases for determining the merits of the plea.[5]
Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.[6]
To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the requisites or elements of self-defense under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC.
[1] G.R. No. 222561
[2] Idem
[3] G.R. No. 260353
[4] Idem
[5] Idem
[6] G.R. No. 219848