CHAPTER TWO: JUSTIFYING AND EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Revised Penal Code

General Concept

Justifying Circumstances

Justifying circumstances are situations where a person commits an act

that would ordinarily constitute a crime, but the law considers the
act lawful and proper under the circumstances.

Effect:

There is no crime because the act is considered lawful.

The person is not criminally liable because the act was done in accordance
with law and justice.

Legal Principle:

In justifying circumstances, the person is not considered an offender

because the law recognizes that the act was necessary, reasonable, or
authorized.

ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Self-Defense

Definition:

A person is not criminally liable when he defends himself against an

unlawful aggression.

Requisites of Self-Defense:

1. Unlawful Aggression

 This is the most important element of self-defense.

 There must be an actual, sudden, and real attack or imminent danger

of attack.

 Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

  The means used to prevent or repel the attack must be reasonable
under the circumstances.

 The defender is not required to use the exact same weapon as the
aggressor, but the force used must not be excessive.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part of the Person

Defending Himself

 The person claiming self-defense must not have given sufficient

provocation to the aggressor.

2. Defense of Relatives

Definition:

A person may defend certain relatives against an unlawful aggression.

Relatives Protected:

 Spouse;

 Ascendants (parents, grandparents);

 Descendants (children, grandchildren);

 Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters;

 Relatives by affinity in the same degree;

 Relatives within the fourth civil degree.

Requisites of Defense of Relatives:

1. Unlawful Aggression

There must be an actual unlawful attack against the relative.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

The means used to repel the aggression must be reasonable.

3. In Case the Person Attacked Gave the Provocation

The defender must have no participation in the provocation given by the

person being defended.
3. Defense of Stranger

Definition:

A person is not criminally liable when he defends a stranger against an

unlawful aggression.

Requisites:

1. Unlawful Aggression

There must be an actual unlawful attack against the stranger.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

The means used must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the

attack.

3. The Defender Must Not Be Motivated by Revenge, Resentment, or

Other Evil Motive

The act must be motivated by the desire to protect another person and not
by personal hatred or revenge.

4. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury

(State of Necessity)

Definition:

A person is justified when he causes damage or injury to prevent a greater

evil or injury.

Requisites:

1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

2. The injury feared is greater than the injury caused;

3. There is no other practical and less harmful means of

preventing it.

Example:

Breaking a door to rescue a child trapped inside a burning house.

5. Fulfillment of a Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office

Definition:

A person is justified when he causes injury while performing a legal duty or

exercising a lawful right or office.

Requisites:

1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty or lawful exercise

of a right or office;

2. The injury caused was a necessary consequence of performing such

duty;

3. There was no unnecessary or excessive use of force.

Example:

A police officer uses reasonable force to arrest a violent offender.

6. Obedience to an Order Issued for Some Lawful Purpose

Definition:

A person is justified when he obeys an order of a superior officer that is

issued for a lawful purpose.

Requisites:

1. There is an order issued by a superior;

2. The order is for a lawful purpose;

3. The means used to carry out the order are lawful.

Difference Between Justifying and Exempting Circumstances

Justifying Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)
(Article 11)

The act may be unlawful, but the offender is

The act itself is lawful.
exempt from liability.

There is no crime
There is a crime, but no criminal liability.
committed.
Justifying Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)
(Article 11)

The person acted correctly The person acted without full voluntariness,
under the law. intelligence, or freedom of action.

Recitation Summary

"Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code provides for justifying

circumstances where the act committed is considered lawful. These
circumstances include self-defense, defense of relatives, defense of
strangers, avoidance of greater evil or injury, fulfillment of duty or
lawful exercise of a right or office, and obedience to a lawful order.
The effect of a justifying circumstance is the absence of criminal
liability because the act is justified by law."
ARTICLE 12 – EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Revised Penal Code (as amended by R.A. No. 9344 and R.A. No.
10630)

General Concept

Exempting circumstances are those where a person commits an act

that may constitute a crime, but the law exempts him from criminal
liability because an essential element of criminal responsibility is
absent.

The offender may have committed the actus reus (criminal act), but he
lacks intelligence, freedom of action, or voluntariness.

In exempting circumstances, the act is not justified; rather, the

offender is excused by law.

1. Imbecility or Insanity (Article 12, Paragraph 1)

Definition:

A person who is an imbecile or insane at the time of the commission of the

crime is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted during a lucid
interval.

Requisites:

1. The accused is suffering from imbecility or insanity;

2. The condition existed at the time of the commission of the crime;

3. The mental condition completely deprived him of intelligence or

reason.

Important Points:

 Insanity is not presumed; it must be proven.

 Mere mental abnormality is not enough.

  A person acting during a lucid interval is liable because he acts with
intelligence.

2. Minority / Child in Conflict with the Law

(R.A. No. 9344, as amended by R.A. No. 10630 – Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act)

Definition:

A child shall be exempt from criminal liability depending on his age at the
time of the commission of the offense.

Rules:

A. Child 15 years old or below

 A child 15 years old or below is exempt from criminal liability.

 The child shall be subjected to an intervention program.

B. Above 15 but below 18 years old

 A child above 15 but below 18 years old is also exempt unless he

acted with discernment.

Discernment

Means the capacity of the child to understand the consequences of his

unlawful act.

Important Point:

Age is determined at the time of the commission of the offense, not

at the time of trial.

3. Irresistible Force (Article 12, Paragraph 2)

Definition:

A person is exempt when he commits a crime because he is compelled by a

physical force that he cannot resist.

Requisites:

1. The compulsion is by means of physical force;

 2. The physical force is irresistible;

3. The force comes from a third person.

Key Principle:

Irresistible force controls the body and deprives the person of

freedom of action.

4. Uncontrollable Fear (Article 12, Paragraph 6)

Definition:

A person is exempt when he commits a crime because of an uncontrollable

fear of an equal or greater injury.

Requisites:

1. The threat causing the fear is of an evil greater than or at least

equal to the injury committed;

2. The fear is real, imminent, and serious;

3. The fear is so overpowering that the person has no reasonable

opportunity to escape.

Key Principle:

Uncontrollable fear deprives the person of freedom of choice.

5. Accident (Article 12, Paragraph 4)

Definition:

A person is exempt when he performs a lawful act with due care and causes
injury by mere accident, without fault or intention of causing it.

Requisites:

1. The person was performing a lawful act;

2. The act was done with due care;

3. The injury was caused by mere accident;

4. There was no fault, negligence, or intention to cause the injury.

Example:

A person is driving carefully and following traffic rules, but an unforeseen

mechanical failure causes injury to another person.

Key Principle:

An accident without fault or negligence does not create criminal

liability.

6. Failure to Perform an Act Required by Law Due to Lawful or

Insuperable Cause (Article 12, Paragraph 7)

Definition:

A person is exempt when he fails to perform an act required by law because

he was prevented by a lawful or insuperable cause.

Requisites:

1. There is an act required by law to be performed;

2. The person fails to perform the required act;

3. The failure is caused by a lawful or insuperable cause.

Examples of Insuperable Cause:

 Extreme debility;

 Serious illness;

 Physical impossibility.

SUMMARY TABLE – ARTICLE 12

Exempting
Provision Reason for Exemption
Circumstance

Art. 12(1) Imbecility or Insanity No intelligence or reason

R.A. 9344 / R.A. Child lacks full criminal

Minority
10630 capacity

Art. 12(2) Irresistible Force No freedom of action

 Exempting
Provision Reason for Exemption
Circumstance

Art. 12(4) Accident No fault or criminal intent

Art. 12(6) Uncontrollable Fear No freedom of choice

Lawful or Insuperable Impossible to comply with

Art. 12(7)
Cause the law

Recitation Format:

"Your Honor, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code provides

exempting circumstances where the offender is not criminally liable
because intelligence, voluntariness, or freedom of action is absent.
These include imbecility or insanity, minority under R.A. No. 9344 as
amended by R.A. No. 10630, irresistible force, accident,
uncontrollable fear, and failure to perform an act required by law
due to a lawful or insuperable cause. Unlike justifying circumstances
where the act is lawful, exempting circumstances excuse the
offender because the law does not consider his act as a voluntary
and responsible criminal act."
Dela Cruz v. People

G.R. No. 189405, November 19, 2014

Topic: Self-Defense – Unlawful Aggression, Retaliation, Reasonable

Necessity of Means Employed

(Lawphil)

Recitation Format

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of Dela Cruz v. People, petitioner Sherwin

Dela Cruz was charged with homicide for the death of Jeffrey
Wernher Gonzales. On January 1, 2005, Dela Cruz went to the office
of Sykes Asia, Inc. located at Robinson’s Summit Center, Makati City,
where the victim was working. Dela Cruz approached Gonzales while
holding a gun pointed at the back of the victim’s head. The victim
noticed the gun and attempted to deflect Dela Cruz’s hand,
resulting in a struggle between them for possession of the firearm.
(Lawphil)

During the struggle, the gun was fired, and Gonzales was hit. Dela
Cruz claimed that he acted in self-defense, arguing that the
shooting happened accidentally during the struggle and that he was
merely defending himself. (Scribd)

The prosecution, however, argued that Dela Cruz was the aggressor
because he went to the victim’s workplace armed with a firearm and
initiated the confrontation. The Court of Appeals convicted him of
homicide, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. (Lawphil)

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Dela Cruz may invoke self-defense as a

justification for shooting the victim.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Dela Cruz cannot
invoke self-defense because the element of unlawful aggression was
absent. (Ang Kaalaman)

Reasoning of the Court:

The Court held that:

1. Dela Cruz was the unlawful aggressor

 Dela Cruz went to the victim’s workplace carrying a firearm.

 He approached the victim from behind with the gun already pointed at
him.

 Therefore, he initiated the aggression. (Lawphil)

2. Any aggression from the victim ceased when the danger ended

Even assuming that the victim struggled to grab or deflect the firearm, such
act was only an attempt to defend himself.

When the struggle ended and the supposed danger no longer existed, Dela
Cruz could no longer claim self-defense.

A person cannot invoke self-defense when he becomes the

aggressor and continues to inflict harm after the unlawful
aggression has ceased.
Doctrine:

"Unlawful aggression is the primordial element of self-defense.

Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete."

The Court explained that once the unlawful aggression has ceased, any
subsequent attack becomes retaliation, not self-defense. (Ang Kaalaman)

Application to Article 11 – Self-Defense

Requisites of Self-Defense:

1. Unlawful Aggression

❌ Absent

 Dela Cruz was the aggressor.

 The victim was merely defending himself.

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

❌ Absent

 Using a firearm against the victim was not reasonably necessary after
the danger had ceased.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation

❌ Not applicable

 Dela Cruz initiated the confrontation.

Important Recitation Point:

If asked:

"Was there unlawful aggression?"

Answer:

"No, Your Honor. The unlawful aggression came from Dela Cruz
himself because he initiated the attack by approaching the victim
with a firearm. The victim’s act of resisting and attempting to seize
the firearm was a defensive act, not unlawful aggression."

Short Recitation Version:

"Your Honor, in Dela Cruz v. People, the accused was convicted of

homicide after shooting the victim during a struggle over a firearm.
The accused claimed self-defense, but the Supreme Court rejected
the defense because he was the unlawful aggressor. He went to the
victim’s workplace armed with a gun and initiated the
confrontation. The Court held that unlawful aggression is the
indispensable element of self-defense, and once the aggression
ceases, any further attack is considered retaliation and not self-
defense." (Lawphil)

Source: Supreme Court Decision, Sherwin Dela Cruz v. People of the

Philippines, G.R. No. 189405, November 19, 2014. (Lawphil)

SPO2 Nacnac v. People

G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

668 SCRA 846 (also reported as 685 Phil. 223)

Topic: Article 11 – Self-Defense; Unlawful Aggression; Reasonable

Necessity of the Means Employed

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Recitation Format

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac v. People of the

Philippines, the accused SPO2 Lolito Nacnac was a police officer
assigned at the Dingras Police Station in Dingras, Ilocos Norte. On
February 20, 2003, Nacnac was the officer-of-the-day at the police
station. The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo, was also a police officer
assigned at the same station. (Judiciary eLibrary)

On that evening, SPO1 Espejo and another police officer, SPO1

Basilio, attempted to use the station’s patrol tricycle. Nacnac
stopped them because, as officer-of-the-day, he believed that they
were needed at the station. Nacnac also observed that Espejo was
already drunk. When Nacnac refused to allow them to leave, Espejo
became angry, cursed Nacnac, and a confrontation followed
between the two police officers. (Studocu)

According to Nacnac, Espejo became hostile and drew his firearm.

Nacnac claimed that he feared for his life because Espejo had a
reputation for violent behavior and had previously attacked another
superior officer. Nacnac then drew his own firearm and shot Espejo,
causing the latter’s death. (Judiciary eLibrary)

The prosecution charged Nacnac with homicide, alleging that he

unlawfully shot and killed SPO1 Espejo. Nacnac admitted shooting
the victim but invoked self-defense, claiming that he acted only to
protect himself from the aggression of Espejo. (Lawphil)

The Regional Trial Court convicted Nacnac of homicide, ruling that

his claim of self-defense failed because there was no unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the conviction, holding that the accused failed to prove the
elements of self-defense. Nacnac elevated the case to the Supreme
Court. (Judiciary eLibrary)

Issue:

Whether or not SPO2 Nacnac may invoke self-defense as a justifying

circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:

Yes, Your Honor. The Supreme Court acquitted SPO2 Nacnac on the
ground of reasonable doubt because the evidence showed that the
circumstances could support his claim of self-defense. (Judiciary
eLibrary)
Reasoning of the Supreme Court

When an accused invokes self-defense:

He admits the commission of the act but claims that it was justified.
Therefore, the burden shifts to him to prove the requisites of self-
defense.

The requisites under Article 11 are:

1. Unlawful aggression;

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it;

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself. (Judiciary eLibrary)

Application of the Requisites

1. Unlawful Aggression – PRESENT

The Supreme Court found that there was sufficient basis to believe that
Nacnac faced an unlawful aggression.

The Court considered:

 Espejo was drunk and had a history of violent behavior;

 Espejo became hostile during the confrontation;

 Espejo drew his firearm during the encounter;

 Nacnac had reasonable grounds to believe that his life was in danger.

The Court explained:

Unlawful aggression exists when there is an actual attack or

imminent danger of attack against a person’s life or limb.

A mere threat is not enough; however, the circumstances must be

considered from the perspective of the accused at the time of the incident.
(Judiciary eLibrary)
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed – PRESENT

The Court held that Nacnac’s act of firing his weapon was reasonably
necessary under the circumstances.

Factors considered:

 Both men were armed police officers;

 The confrontation happened suddenly;

 Nacnac had limited time to assess the danger;

 He acted to protect himself from a perceived threat.

The law does not require perfect judgment from a person placed in a
dangerous situation.

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation – PRESENT

The Court found no sufficient provocation from Nacnac.

Although he refused to allow Espejo to use the patrol vehicle, this was part of
his official duty as officer-of-the-day and was not sufficient provocation to
justify the victim’s aggression.

Doctrine:

"Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense.

However, the determination of unlawful aggression must consider
the circumstances surrounding the incident and the reasonable
belief of the accused at the time of the attack." (Judiciary eLibrary)

Article 11 Application

Requisite of Self-Defense Application

✅ Present – victim’s act of drawing a firearm

1. Unlawful Aggression
created imminent danger

2. Reasonable Necessity of ✅ Present – shooting was considered

Means Employed reasonable under the circumstances

3. Lack of Sufficient ✅ Present – accused was performing his duty

Requisite of Self-Defense Application

Provocation

Short Recitation Version

"Your Honor, in SPO2 Nacnac v. People, the accused police officer

was charged with homicide for shooting and killing SPO1 Doddie
Espejo. Nacnac admitted the shooting but invoked self-defense,
claiming that Espejo, who was drunk and known for violent behavior,
drew his firearm during their confrontation. The Supreme Court
acquitted Nacnac, finding that the requisites of self-defense were
sufficiently established. The Court held that unlawful aggression
was present because Espejo’s act of drawing his firearm created an
imminent threat to Nacnac’s life. The Court emphasized that self-
defense must be evaluated based on the circumstances as they
appeared to the accused at the time of the incident."

Key Recitation Question

Q: What is the most important element of self-defense?

A:

"Your Honor, the most important element is unlawful aggression.

Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense because
there is no attack to prevent or repel." (Judiciary eLibrary)

Source: SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191913,
March 21, 2012. (Judiciary eLibrary)

People of the Philippines v. Genosa

G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

Topic: Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a Defense; Self-Defense

under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code

Doctrine: Unlawful Aggression remains indispensable in self-

defense; Battered Woman Syndrome alone does not automatically
justify the killing.
(Lawphil)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Marivic

Genosa, the accused Marivic Genosa was charged with parricide for
the killing of her husband, Ben Genosa. The incident happened on
November 15, 1995, inside their house in Ormoc City. Marivic
admitted that she killed her husband but claimed that she acted in
self-defense because she had suffered years of physical and
psychological abuse from her husband. (Lawphil)

Marivic and Ben Genosa were married and initially had a normal
relationship. However, according to Marivic, their relationship later
became violent. She testified that Ben would frequently come home
drunk, become angry, and physically abuse her. She narrated
several incidents where Ben allegedly beat, kicked, and threatened
her. Because of the repeated violence, she developed fear and
psychological trauma from her husband's abusive behavior. (Lawphil)

On the night of the incident, Ben arrived home intoxicated and a

heated argument occurred between them. According to Marivic, Ben
again attacked her and repeatedly punched and kicked her. She
claimed that she tried to defend herself and escape from the attack.
During the confrontation, she was able to get hold of a gun and
struck Ben on the head. She later used the gun to shoot him,
causing his death. (Lawphil)

After the incident, Marivic did not immediately report the killing.
She later admitted that she killed her husband but argued that she
did so because of her long history of abuse and her belief that she
needed to protect herself from further harm. (Lawphil)

During the trial, Marivic invoked the defense of self-defense based

on the Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS). She presented evidence
showing that she had suffered repeated physical and emotional
abuse from her husband. She argued that because of the cycle of
violence, she developed a psychological condition that affected her
ability to assess danger and respond normally. (Lawphil)
Issue:

Whether or not Marivic Genosa may invoke Battered Woman

Syndrome as a form of self-defense and be completely exempt from
criminal liability.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Marivic Genosa was
not entitled to complete self-defense because the element of
unlawful aggression was absent at the time she killed her husband.
(Lawphil)

However, the Court recognized that the years of abuse she suffered caused
psychological paralysis, which diminished her ability to exercise complete
self-control. Thus, the Court appreciated mitigating circumstances under
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. (Lawphil)

Court's Reasoning

I. Battered Woman Syndrome and Self-Defense

The Court recognized that Battered Woman Syndrome exists as a

psychological condition resulting from repeated abuse.

The Court explained that BWS involves a cycle of violence, consisting of:

1. Tension-Building Phase

 Minor incidents of abuse occur;

 The victim attempts to avoid provoking the abuser.

2. Acute Battering Incident

 The violence escalates into serious physical abuse.

3. Tranquil or Loving Phase

 The abuser becomes apologetic or temporarily stops the violence.

The cycle may repeat, causing the victim to develop fear, helplessness, and
psychological dependence. (ADB Law and Policy Reform)
Application to Self-Defense

Requisites of Self-Defense under Article 11:

1. Unlawful Aggression

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed

3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation

1. Unlawful Aggression – ABSENT

The Supreme Court held that:

There was no unlawful aggression at the precise moment Marivic

killed Ben.

Although Ben had previously abused her, the Court ruled that:

 Past acts of violence cannot automatically constitute unlawful

aggression;

 There must be an actual, sudden, and imminent attack when the killing
occurred.

The Court emphasized:

Without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense,

complete or incomplete. (Lawphil)

2. Reasonable Necessity of Means Employed

The Court considered that Marivic used a deadly weapon against her
husband.

The force used must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel an actual

attack.

Because the danger was no longer immediate at the time of the fatal
shooting, the requirement of reasonable necessity was not fully satisfied.
(Lawphil)
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation

The Court considered that Marivic had been subjected to repeated abuse by
her husband.

However, because the first element of self-defense was absent, the defense
still failed.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

"Battered Woman Syndrome may be considered in determining the

criminal liability of an accused, but it does not automatically
constitute self-defense. The essential element of unlawful
aggression must still exist at the time of the killing." (Lawphil)

Important Recitation Points

Question: Can Battered Woman Syndrome be a complete defense?

Answer:

"Not automatically, Your Honor. Battered Woman Syndrome may

support a claim of self-defense, but the accused must still prove the
requisites of self-defense, particularly unlawful aggression."

Question: Why did Genosa fail to establish self-defense?

Answer:

"Because there was no immediate and unexpected attack from Ben

Genosa at the moment she shot him. The previous abuses
constituted cumulative provocation but did not amount to unlawful
aggression required for self-defense."

Short Recitation Version:

"Your Honor, in People v. Genosa, Marivic Genosa was charged with

parricide for killing her husband, Ben Genosa. She admitted the
killing but invoked self-defense based on Battered Woman
Syndrome, claiming that she suffered years of physical and
psychological abuse. The Supreme Court held that she was not
entitled to complete self-defense because there was no unlawful
aggression at the time of the killing. The Court ruled that past
abuses alone do not constitute unlawful aggression. However, the
Court recognized that the repeated abuse caused psychological
paralysis and diminished her capacity for self-control, which was
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance." (Lawphil)

Source:

People of the Philippines v. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15,
2004 (Supreme Court En Banc). (Lawphil)
People v. Agacer

G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011

662 SCRA 461

Topic: Defense of Relatives (Article 11, Paragraph 2, Revised Penal

Code)

Doctrine: Defense of relatives requires the presence of unlawful

aggression and reasonable necessity of the means employed. The
defender must not have participated in the provocation if the
person defended gave the provocation.

(Lawphil)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Agacer, the

accused Florencio Agacer, together with Eddie Agacer, Elynor
Agacer, Franklin Agacer, and Eric Agacer, were charged with the
crime of murder for the killing of their relative, Cesario Agacer. The
accused and the victim were related to each other; however, they
had an existing conflict involving a piece of land. (Lawphil)

On April 2, 1998, in Sta. Ana, Cagayan, Florencio Agacer went to the

disputed land to work on it. Cesario Agacer, who claimed rights over
the same property, confronted Florencio and prevented him from
continuing his work. A heated confrontation occurred between
them. (Lawphil)

According to Florencio, Cesario became aggressive and chased him

while carrying a firearm. Florencio claimed that he feared for his life
and that he called his relatives for help. His relatives, Eddie, Elynor,
Franklin, and Eric Agacer, arrived at the scene. They claimed that
they acted to defend Florencio from Cesario's aggression. (Lawphil)

The prosecution, however, presented evidence that the accused

relatives, armed with different weapons including a firearm, bolo,
bow and arrow, and stones, attacked Cesario together. Cesario
sustained multiple gunshot wounds and other injuries which caused
his death. (Lawphil)

The accused invoked self-defense and defense of relatives, arguing

that they only acted to protect Florencio from Cesario's unlawful
aggression. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of murder, and
the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The case was elevated
to the Supreme Court. (Lawphil)

Issue:

Whether or not the accused may invoke defense of relatives under

Article 11(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused cannot
invoke defense of relatives because the essential element of
unlawful aggression was not sufficiently established. (Lawphil)

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

Defense of Relatives under Article 11(2)

Article 11 provides that a person is justified when he acts in defense of the

person or rights of:

 Spouse;

 Ascendants;

 Descendants;

 Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers and sisters;

 Relatives by affinity in the same degrees;

  Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.

However, the following requisites must be present:

Requisites:

1. Unlawful Aggression

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to Prevent or Repel

It

3. In case the person attacked gave the provocation, the defender

had no part in such provocation

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Application of the Requisites

1. Unlawful Aggression – ABSENT

The Supreme Court held that the accused failed to prove that Cesario
committed unlawful aggression.

The Court explained:

 A mere threat or confrontation is not enough;

 There must be an actual attack or imminent danger to life or limb;

 The aggression must exist at the time the defensive act was
committed.

The Court found that the evidence did not show that Cesario was actually
attacking Florencio when the accused relatives inflicted the fatal injuries.

Without unlawful aggression, there can be no defense of relatives.

(Lawphil)

2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed – ABSENT

Even assuming that Florencio was being attacked, the Court held that the
means used by the accused were excessive.

The accused did not merely repel an attack; instead:

 Several relatives participated;

  They used different weapons;

 Cesario suffered multiple injuries resulting in his death.

The response was considered more than what was reasonably necessary to
defend a relative.

(Lawphil)

3. Lack of Participation in Provocation – NOT SATISFIED

The Court found that the circumstances surrounding the confrontation

showed that the accused relatives participated in the violent encounter
rather than merely protecting Florencio.

They acted as aggressors instead of defenders.

Doctrine:

"Defense of relatives is based on the same principle as self-defense.

The indispensable element is unlawful aggression. The defender
cannot invoke this defense when there is no actual aggression to
repel or when the means employed are excessive."

Article 11(2) Application

Requisite Application

Unlawful aggression ❌ Not proven

Reasonable necessity of means ❌ Excessive force

employed used

No participation in provocation ❌ Not established

Short Recitation Version

"Your Honor, in People v. Agacer, the accused relatives were

charged with murder for killing Cesario Agacer. They invoked
defense of relatives, claiming that they acted to protect Florencio
Agacer from Cesario's aggression arising from a land dispute. The
Supreme Court rejected the defense because the accused failed to
prove unlawful aggression, which is the essential element of
defense of relatives. The Court held that a person may defend a
relative only when there is an actual and unlawful attack, and the
means employed must be reasonably necessary. Since the accused
acted beyond what was necessary and inflicted fatal injuries, they
could not invoke Article 11(2) of the Revised Penal Code."

Key Recitation Question

Q: What is the most important element of defense of relatives?

Answer:

"Your Honor, unlawful aggression. Defense of relatives cannot exist

without unlawful aggression because the purpose of the defense is
only to prevent or repel an actual unlawful attack against the
relative."

Source: People of the Philippines v. Florencio Agacer, Eddie Agacer, Elynor

Agacer, Franklin Agacer and Eric Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14,
2011, 662 SCRA 461. (Lawphil)
Cabuslay v. People

G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005

471 SCRA 241

Topic: Defense of Stranger (Article 11, Paragraph 3, Revised Penal

Code)

Doctrine: Defense of strangers requires the presence of unlawful

aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means
employed, and absence of revenge, resentment, or evil motive on
the part of the defender.

(Lawphil)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of Jovito Cabuslay v. People of the

Philippines and Sandiganbayan, the accused Jovito Cabuslay was a
police officer assigned at the Philippine National Police Provincial
Headquarters of Lanao del Norte. He and his fellow police officers
were manning a mobile checkpoint in Libertad, Kauswagan, Lanao
del Norte on August 5, 1992. (Lawphil)

At around 8:30 in the morning, Paquito Umas-as, a collector of

payments for goods sold on credit, was riding his motorcycle along
the highway. Upon reaching the checkpoint, the police officers
signaled him to stop. Senior Inspector Celso Regencia, who was
leading the checkpoint operation, asked Umas-as to present his
identification card. (Lawphil)

According to the prosecution, when Umas-as reached for his

identification card, he was suddenly shot by SPO2 Jovito Cabuslay.
The victim was unarmed and was merely complying with the request
of the police officers. Cabuslay fired several shots at Umas-as,
hitting him in different parts of his body. The victim was still alive
when he was brought to the hospital but was later declared dead.
(Lawphil)

The prosecution charged Cabuslay and his companions with murder.

However, Cabuslay claimed that he acted in self-defense and
defense of a stranger. According to him, Umas-as was the aggressor
because when Regencia asked for his identification, Umas-as
pretended to get his wallet but instead pulled out a firearm and
shot Regencia. Cabuslay claimed that he fired at Umas-as to protect
his fellow police officer from the attack. (Lawphil)

The Sandiganbayan acquitted Cabuslay’s co-accused but found

Cabuslay guilty of homicide. Cabuslay appealed to the Supreme
Court, insisting that he should be exempt from criminal liability
because he acted in defense of a stranger, particularly in defense of
his fellow police officer Regencia. (Lawphil)

Issue:

Whether or not Cabuslay may invoke defense of a stranger as a

justifying circumstance under Article 11(3) of the Revised Penal
Code.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Cabuslay cannot
invoke defense of a stranger because he failed to prove the
existence of unlawful aggression by the victim. (ChanRobles Law Firm)

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

When an accused invokes defense of a stranger:

He admits that he caused the injury or death of another person but
claims that his act was justified. Therefore, he must prove the
requisites of the defense by clear and convincing evidence.
(ChanRobles Law Firm)

Requisites of Defense of Stranger

Article 11(3), Revised Penal Code

1. Unlawful aggression by the victim

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel

it

3. The person defending must not be induced by revenge,

resentment, or other evil motive

(ChanRobles Law Firm)

Application of the Requisites

1. Unlawful Aggression – ABSENT

The Supreme Court held that Cabuslay failed to prove that Umas-as
committed unlawful aggression.

The Court explained:

 Unlawful aggression is the most important and indispensable

element of defense of stranger.

 It requires an actual attack or imminent danger of attack.

 A mere suspicion or belief that a person is dangerous is insufficient.

The Court found that the evidence did not support Cabuslay’s claim that
Umas-as fired first.

The victim was merely being inspected at a checkpoint when he was shot.

Without unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel;

therefore, defense of stranger cannot be invoked.
(ChanRobles Law Firm)
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed – ABSENT

The Court held that even assuming there was an attack, Cabuslay’s response
was excessive.

The evidence showed:

 Cabuslay fired multiple shots;

 The victim suffered several gunshot wounds;

 The manner of shooting indicated an intent to kill rather than merely

defend another person.

The means employed must be reasonably necessary under the

circumstances.

A defender cannot use excessive force when there is no longer a threat.

(Scribd)

3. No Revenge, Resentment, or Evil Motive

The Court did not find sufficient evidence that Cabuslay acted out of revenge
or personal hatred.

However, this did not save his defense because the first requirement—
unlawful aggression—was absent.

Doctrine:

"Defense of a stranger is similar to self-defense because unlawful

aggression is the primordial element. If there is no unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim, there is nothing to prevent or
repel, and the defense must fail."
(ChanRobles Law Firm)

Article 11(3) Application

Requisite Application

Unlawful aggression by the victim ❌ Not proven

Reasonable necessity of means ❌ Excessive firing of firearm

Requisite Application

employed

No revenge, resentment, or evil Not sufficient because first element

motive failed

Short Recitation Version

"Your Honor, in Cabuslay v. People, the accused police officer Jovito

Cabuslay shot Paquito Umas-as at a police checkpoint. Cabuslay
claimed that he acted in defense of a stranger because Umas-as
allegedly fired first at his fellow police officer, Regencia. The
Supreme Court rejected the defense because Cabuslay failed to
prove unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The Court held
that defense of a stranger requires the same primordial element as
self-defense, which is unlawful aggression. Since there was no
actual attack to prevent or repel, the shooting was not justified, and
Cabuslay was held criminally liable."

Possible Professor Question

Q: What distinguishes defense of a stranger from self-defense?

Answer:

"Your Honor, both defenses require unlawful aggression and

reasonable necessity of the means employed. The distinction is that
in self-defense, the accused protects himself, while in defense of a
stranger, the accused protects another person who is not related to
him, provided that he is not motivated by revenge, resentment, or
evil motive."

Source:

Cabuslay v. People, G.R. No. 129875, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA
241. (Lawphil)
Madali v. People

G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009

595 SCRA 274

Topic: Defense of Relatives / Self-Defense; Unlawful Aggression;

Minority (Discernment)

([Supreme Court Decision, G.R. No. 180380] (Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions))

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali v.

People of the Philippines, the accused Raymund Madali and Rodel
Madali were charged with homicide for the death of Dominador
"Dodo" G. Madriaga. The incident happened in Barangay San Pedro,
Romblon, Romblon. (Philippine Supreme Court Decisions)

On the night of the incident, Raymund Madali, who was still a minor
at the time, was with his brother Rodel Madali. They encountered
Dominador Madriaga and a confrontation occurred between them.
According to the prosecution, the accused attacked Madriaga,
causing injuries that eventually led to his death. (Philippine Supreme
Court Decisions)

The prosecution alleged that Raymund and Rodel acted together in

assaulting the victim. The victim sustained injuries from the attack
and later died. Because of the death, the two brothers were charged
with homicide. (Philippine Supreme Court Decisions)

During the trial, the accused denied the charge and raised defenses,
including self-defense and lack of criminal liability on the part of
Raymund because he was a minor at the time of the commission of
the offense. (Philippine Supreme Court Decisions)

Raymund claimed that because of his age, he should be exempt

from criminal liability. The prosecution, however, argued that
although he was a minor, he acted with discernment because he
understood the consequences of his act. (Judiciary eLibrary)

The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused of homicide. The

Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, prompting the accused to
elevate the case to the Supreme Court. (Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions)

Issue:

Whether or not the accused may avoid criminal liability by invoking

self-defense and whether the minor accused may be exempt from
criminal liability due to his age.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused failed to
establish self-defense. The Court also ruled that minority alone does
not automatically exempt a child above 15 years old but below 18
years old when he acted with discernment. (Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions)

Reasoning of the Court

I. Self-Defense

The Court reiterated that when the accused invokes self-defense, he admits
the commission of the act but claims that the act was justified.

Therefore, the accused must prove the following requisites:

Requisites of Self-Defense (Article 11):

1. Unlawful aggression;

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel the aggression;

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.

1. Unlawful Aggression – ABSENT

The Court held that the accused failed to prove that the victim was the
aggressor.

Doctrine:

Unlawful aggression is the primordial and indispensable element of

self-defense.

There must be:

 Actual attack;

 Imminent danger;

 Threat to life or limb.

A mere fear, suspicion, or belief that an attack will happen is insufficient.

Without unlawful aggression:

"There is nothing to prevent or repel; therefore, self-defense cannot
exist."

II. Minority as Defense

The Court discussed the rule on juvenile offenders.

Under R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act):

1. Child 15 years old or below

 Exempt from criminal liability.

2. Above 15 but below 18 years old

 Exempt unless he acted with discernment.

Discernment

Means:

The capacity of the child to understand the consequences of his

unlawful act.

The Court held that a minor who understands that his act is wrong and
knows its consequences may still be held responsible.

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Doctrine:

"Minority is not an automatic defense. A child above fifteen (15) but

below eighteen (18) years of age may still be held criminally liable if
he acted with discernment." (Judiciary eLibrary)

"In self-defense, unlawful aggression is the most important element.

Without unlawful aggression, the other requisites cannot be
considered."

Article 11 / Article 12 Connection

Self-Defense
Requisite Application

Unlawful aggression ❌ Not established

Reasonable necessity of means

❌ Not justified
employed

❌ Not sufficiently
Lack of sufficient provocation
proven

Minority (Article 12 / R.A. 9344)

Age Effect

15 years old and

Exempt from criminal liability
below

Above 15 but below Exempt unless acted with

18 discernment

Short Recitation Version

"Your Honor, in Madali v. People, the accused brothers Raymund and

Rodel Madali were charged with homicide for the death of
Dominador Madriaga. The accused invoked defenses including self-
defense and minority. The Supreme Court rejected the claim of self-
defense because the accused failed to prove unlawful aggression,
which is the indispensable element of self-defense. The Court
further ruled that minority does not automatically exempt a child
above 15 but below 18 years old because criminal liability may still
attach if the child acted with discernment, meaning he understood
the nature and consequences of his act."

Key Recitation Questions

Q: What is the importance of unlawful aggression in self-defense?

Answer:
"Your Honor, unlawful aggression is the primordial element of self-
defense. Without it, there is no attack to prevent or repel, and
therefore no self-defense may be appreciated."

Q: Is a minor automatically exempt from criminal liability?

Answer:

"No, Your Honor. A minor above 15 but below 18 years old is exempt
only if he did not act with discernment. If he understood the
consequences of his act, he may still be held liable."

Source: Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali v. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 180380, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 274. (Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions)
People v. Sarcia

G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009

599 SCRA 20

Topic: Minority as an Exempting Circumstance (Article 12, Revised

Penal Code; R.A. No. 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)

Doctrine: A child above 15 but below 18 years old is exempt from

criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. Discernment
refers to the capacity of the child to understand the consequences
of his unlawful act.

(Lawyerly)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Richard O.

Sarcia, the accused Richard O. Sarcia, also known as "Nogi," was
charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA, a five-year-
old girl. The alleged incident happened sometime in 1996 at
Barangay Doña Tomasa, Guinobatan, Albay. (Scribd)

According to the prosecution, AAA was playing with other children

when Sarcia took advantage of her young age and brought her to a
place where he sexually abused her. AAA was only five years old at
the time of the incident. Several years later, after the victim
disclosed the incident, her father filed a complaint initially for acts
of lasciviousness, but after investigation, the charge was amended
to rape. (Scribd)

During trial, AAA testified regarding the sexual abuse committed

against her. Her cousin, who witnessed portions of the incident, also
testified and corroborated her account. A medical examination was
also presented to support the occurrence of sexual abuse. (Scribd)

The accused denied the accusation and raised the defense of alibi.
He argued that the testimonies of the witnesses were not credible
and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He also invoked his minority at the time of the commission of
the crime, claiming that he should be exempt from criminal liability
under R.A. No. 9344. (Ang Kaalaman)

The Regional Trial Court convicted Sarcia of rape. The Court of

Appeals affirmed the conviction and imposed the death penalty due
to the qualifying circumstance. The case was elevated to the
Supreme Court for automatic review. (Lawyerly)

Issue:

Whether or not Richard Sarcia may be exempt from criminal liability

because of minority under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code and
R.A. No. 9344.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Sarcia was not
exempt from criminal liability because although he was a minor at
the time of the commission of the crime, he acted with discernment.
(Ang Kaalaman)

The Court affirmed his conviction but modified the penalty because of the
application of R.A. No. 9344 regarding juvenile offenders. (Ang Kaalaman)

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

Minority as an Exempting Circumstance

Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, as modified by R.A. No.

9344:

1. Child 15 years old or below

✅ Exempt from criminal liability.

2. Above 15 but below 18 years old

✅ Exempt unless the child acted with discernment.

Meaning of Discernment

Discernment is the mental capacity of the child to understand the

difference between right and wrong and to appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act.

The Court considers factors such as:

 The child's age;

 The circumstances of the crime;

 The manner of committing the offense;

 The behavior of the accused before and after the crime.

Application in the Case

Discernment – PRESENT

The Court held that Sarcia acted with discernment because:

 He knew the nature of his acts;

 He understood that his actions against a young child were wrong;

 The manner in which the crime was committed showed awareness and
intent.

Therefore, minority did not exempt him from criminal responsibility. (Ang
Kaalaman)

Doctrine:

"Minority is not an absolute defense. A child between fifteen (15)

and eighteen (18) years of age may still be held criminally liable
when he acted with discernment."

Article 12 Application

Requirement Application

Accused was a minor ✅ Yes

Age was above 15 but ✅ Yes

Requirement Application

below 18

Acted without discernment ❌ Not proven

Exempt from criminal

❌ No
liability

Important Recitation Points

Question: Is a minor automatically exempt from criminal liability?

Answer:

"No, Your Honor. Under R.A. No. 9344, a child above fifteen but
below eighteen years old is exempt only if he acted without
discernment. If he understood the nature and consequences of his
act, criminal liability may still attach."

Question: What is discernment?

Answer:

"Discernment is the capacity of the child to understand the

difference between right and wrong and to appreciate the
consequences of his unlawful act."

Short Recitation Version:

"Your Honor, in People v. Sarcia, the accused Richard Sarcia was

convicted of rape committed against a five-year-old girl. The
accused invoked minority under R.A. No. 9344. The Supreme Court
ruled that he was not exempt because although he was a minor at
the time of the offense, he acted with discernment. The Court
explained that minority is not an automatic exemption because a
child above fifteen but below eighteen years old may still be held
liable if he understands the nature and consequences of his act."
(Lawyerly)
Source:

People of the Philippines v. Richard O. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641,

September 10, 2009, 599 SCRA 20. (Lawyerly)

People of the Philippines v. Honorio Tibon

G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010

622 SCRA 510

Topic: Insanity as a Defense (Article 12, Paragraph 1 – Exempting

Circumstance)

Doctrine: Insanity is not presumed. The accused who invokes

insanity must prove that he was completely deprived of intelligence
at the time of the commission of the crime. Mere abnormal behavior,
emotional disturbance, or inability to remember the incident is not
sufficient.

(ChanRobles Law Firm)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Honorio Tibon

y Deiso, the accused Honorio Tibon was charged with two counts of
parricide for killing his two young children, Keen Gist Tibon, three
years old, and Reguel Albert Tibon, two years old. The incident
happened on December 12, 1998, in Manila. (Lawphil)
According to the prosecution, Tibon attacked his two children inside
their residence and stabbed them several times using a bladed
weapon. The stab wounds sustained by the children caused their
deaths. Because the victims were his legitimate children, the
accused was charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code. (Lawphil)

During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses, including the

mother of the victims and other persons who testified regarding the
circumstances surrounding the killing. The evidence showed that
Tibon voluntarily committed the acts that resulted in the death of
his two children. (Lawphil)

Tibon admitted the killing but raised the defense of insanity. He

claimed that he was suffering from a mental condition and that he
was not in his right mind when he committed the crime. He argued
that because of his mental condition, he should be exempt from
criminal liability under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
(ChanRobles Law Firm)

The Regional Trial Court rejected his defense and found him guilty of
two counts of parricide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
conviction. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court, where
Tibon insisted that he should not be held criminally liable because
he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense. (Lawphil)

Issue:

Whether or not Honorio Tibon may be exempt from criminal liability

on the ground of insanity under Article 12(1) of the Revised Penal
Code.

Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Tibon failed to prove
insanity as an exempting circumstance. Therefore, he remained
criminally liable for the crime of parricide. (ChanRobles Law Firm)

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

Article 12(1) – Insanity as an Exempting Circumstance

Article 12 provides:

"An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during
a lucid interval, is exempt from criminal liability."

However, insanity is considered an exception rather than the rule

because the law presumes that every person is sane. (ChanRobles Law Firm)

Requirements to Prove Insanity

The accused must prove:

1. The accused was insane at the time of the commission of the

crime

 The insanity must exist during or immediately before the

commission of the offense.

 A previous mental illness does not automatically exempt a person from

liability.

2. The insanity completely deprived the accused of intelligence or

reason

 The accused must be unable to understand the nature and

consequences of his act.

 Mere abnormality, anger, emotional disturbance, or loss of memory is

insufficient.

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Application in the Case

Insanity – NOT PROVEN

The Supreme Court held that:

 Tibon failed to present sufficient evidence proving that he was insane

at the time of the killings.

 The mental records presented did not establish that he was deprived of
reason when he killed his children.
  His unusual behavior before and after the crime did not meet the strict
requirements for legal insanity.

(ChanRobles Law Firm)

The Court emphasized:

A person who invokes insanity admits the commission of the crime

but claims exemption from liability; therefore, he bears the burden
of proving insanity.

(ChanRobles Law Firm)

Doctrine:

"Insanity is a defense that must be proved by clear and convincing

evidence. The test is not whether the accused was mentally
abnormal, but whether he was completely deprived of intelligence
and reason at the time of the commission of the crime." (ChanRobles
Law Firm)

Article 12(1) Application

Requisite Application

❌ Not sufficiently
Accused was insane
proven

Insanity existed at the time of the

❌ Not established
crime

Complete deprivation of
❌ Not proven
intelligence/reason

Important Recitation Questions

Q: Is insanity presumed?

Answer:

"No, Your Honor. Sanity is presumed. The accused who invokes

insanity has the burden of proving it with clear and convincing
evidence."
Q: What kind of insanity exempts a person from criminal liability?

Answer:

"Only legal insanity, where the accused is completely deprived of

intelligence and reason at the time of the commission of the crime.
Mere mental abnormality or emotional disturbance is not sufficient."

Q: When should insanity exist to exempt the accused?

Answer:

"The insanity must exist at the time immediately preceding or

simultaneous with the commission of the offense." (ChanRobles Law
Firm)

Short Recitation Version

"Your Honor, in People v. Tibon, the accused was charged with two
counts of parricide for killing his two children. He admitted the
killing but invoked insanity as a defense under Article 12(1) of the
Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court rejected his defense
because he failed to prove that he was completely deprived of
intelligence and reason at the time of the commission of the crime.
The Court held that insanity is not presumed and must be proven by
the accused. Mere unusual behavior or mental disturbance is not
enough. Therefore, because the presumption of sanity was not
overcome, Tibon was held criminally liable."

Source:

People of the Philippines v. Honorio Tibon y Deiso, G.R. No. 188320,

June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 510.
(ChanRobles Law Firm)
People v. Anod

G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009

597 SCRA 205

Topic: Exempting Circumstances – Irresistible Force and

Uncontrollable Fear (Article 12, Paragraphs 5 and 6, Revised Penal
Code)

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Doctrine:

A person is exempt from criminal liability when he acts under the

compulsion of an irresistible force or under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury because he does
not act with freedom. However, the force, fear, or intimidation must
be actual, imminent, and impending, and must be sufficient to
create a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
harm. A mere threat of future injury is not enough. (Judiciary eLibrary)

Recitation Format (Detailed Facts)

Facts:

Your Honor, in the case of People of the Philippines v. Samuel Anod,

the accused Samuel Anod was charged with murder for the killing of
Erlando Costan. The incident happened on May 16, 1997, in Bislig,
Surigao del Sur. Anod was accused of conspiring with Lionel
Lumbayan in attacking and killing the victim. (Judiciary eLibrary)

According to the prosecution, Samuel Anod and Lionel Lumbayan

went to the place where Erlando Costan was located. During the
encounter, Lumbayan attacked Costan using a bolo, while Anod also
participated in the assault. The victim sustained multiple injuries
which caused his death. ([Link])

The prosecution alleged that the killing was attended by qualifying

circumstances, particularly treachery and evident premeditation.
The trial court found Anod guilty of murder and sentenced him
accordingly. (Judiciary eLibrary)

On appeal, Anod admitted his participation in the killing but claimed

that he should not be held criminally liable because he acted
against his will. He argued that he was forced by Lumbayan to
participate and that he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible
force and under uncontrollable fear for his life. (Judiciary eLibrary)

Anod claimed that Lumbayan threatened him and that he had no

choice but to obey because he feared that he himself would be
killed if he refused. He argued that his participation was not
voluntary but was the result of intimidation and fear. (Judiciary
eLibrary)

Issue:

Whether or not Samuel Anod may be exempt from criminal liability

under Article 12(5) and Article 12(6) of the Revised Penal Code on
the grounds of irresistible force and uncontrollable fear.
Ruling:

No, Your Honor. The Supreme Court ruled that Anod failed to prove
the existence of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear. Therefore,
he remained criminally liable for the crime committed. (Judiciary
eLibrary)

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

I. Irresistible Force (Article 12, Paragraph 5)

Definition:

Irresistible force exists when a person is physically compelled to

commit a crime by another person in such a way that he becomes a
mere instrument who acts without or against his will.

The force must be:

1. Physical force;

2. Irresistible in character;

3. Coming from a third person.

(Legaldex AI)

Application in People v. Anod

The Court held that:

❌ There was no irresistible force.

The accused was not physically forced or controlled like a mere instrument.

The Court considered that:

 Anod was not physically restrained;

 He had the opportunity to escape;

 He could have refused to participate;

 He could have sought help from authorities.

Therefore, his act was still considered voluntary.

(Judiciary eLibrary)

II. Uncontrollable Fear (Article 12, Paragraph 6)

Definition:

Uncontrollable fear exists when a person commits an act because of fear of

an equal or greater injury that leaves him without a reasonable opportunity
to escape or defend himself.

Requisites of Uncontrollable Fear:

1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear

There must be genuine fear, not imaginary or speculative fear.

2. The fear must be real and imminent

The danger must be immediate and impending.

3. The feared injury must be equal to or greater than the injury

caused

The accused must face a greater or equal harm if he refuses to act.

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Application in People v. Anod

The Supreme Court ruled:

❌ Anod failed to prove uncontrollable fear.

The Court held that:

 The alleged threat from Lumbayan was not immediate;

 There was no showing that Anod was facing an actual danger of death
or serious bodily harm at that moment;

 He had opportunities to avoid the crime.

The Court emphasized:

A threat of future injury is not enough to constitute uncontrollable
fear.

(Judiciary eLibrary)

Doctrine:

"For irresistible force or uncontrollable fear to exempt a person

from criminal liability, the accused must show that he acted without
freedom. The compulsion or fear must be so strong that there was
no opportunity to escape or resist." (Judiciary eLibrary)

Comparison for Recitation

Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear

Nature Physical compulsion Psychological compulsion

Person becomes a mere Person acts because of

Effect
instrument overwhelming fear

Source Third person's physical force Threat of equal or greater injury

Requirem No reasonable opportunity to

No freedom of action
ent escape

Someone physically forces your Someone threatens immediate

Example
hand to stab another death if you refuse

Short Recitation Version:

"Your Honor, in People v. Anod, the accused Samuel Anod was

convicted of murder for participating in the killing of Erlando
Costan. Anod claimed that he should be exempt from criminal
liability because he acted under irresistible force and uncontrollable
fear, alleging that he was forced by his companion, Lumbayan, to
participate in the killing. The Supreme Court rejected his defense
because he failed to prove that the force or fear was actual,
imminent, and so overpowering that he had no opportunity to
escape or resist. The Court held that a mere threat of future harm is
insufficient to constitute uncontrollable fear, and the accused must
show that he acted without freedom."

Possible Professor Questions

Q: What is the difference between irresistible force and

uncontrollable fear?

Answer:

"Your Honor, irresistible force involves physical compulsion where

the accused becomes a mere instrument of another person. On the
other hand, uncontrollable fear involves psychological pressure
where the accused commits the act because of an immediate threat
of equal or greater injury."

Q: Why was Anod not exempt?

Answer:

"Because Your Honor, the alleged force and fear did not deprive him
of all freedom of action. He still had the opportunity to escape,
refuse, or seek assistance; therefore, the requirements of Article 12
paragraphs 5 and 6 were not satisfied."

Source:

People of the Philippines v. Samuel Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August

25, 2009, 597 SCRA 205. (Judiciary eLibrary)