1. Self-defense of chastity - to be entitled to complete self-defense of chastity, there must be an attempt to rape, mere imminence thereof will suffice.
Honor of a woman in respect of her defense is equated with her virginity
2. Defense of property - an attack on the property must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or of one entrusted with the care of such property.
This can only be invoked if the life and limb of the person making the defense is also the subject of unlawful aggression. Life cannot be equal to property.
3. Self-defense in libel - physical assault may be justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good name, and while the libel is in progress, one libel deserves another.
In order however, that one may invoke this novel doctrine, the defamatory statements made by the accused must be a fair answer to the libel made by the supposed offended party and must be related to the imputation made. (pp vs. Chua Hong) In conclusion, if the answer which is libelous is excessive, it will not constitute self- defense.
*Burden of proof - on the accused (sufficient, clear and convincing evidence; must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution)
DEFENSE OF RELATIVE Elements:
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense had no part in such provocation.
Relatives entitled to the defense: 1. spouse
2. ascendants 3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters 5. relatives by affinity in the same degree (2nd degree)
6. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
The third element need not take place. The relative defended may
even be the original aggressor. All that is required to justify the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation. General opinion is to the effect that all relatives mentioned must be
legitimate, except in cases of brothers and sisters who, by relatives by
nature, may be illegitimate.
The unlawful aggression may depend on the honest belief of the person making the defense.
If the person being defended is already a second cousin, you do not invoke
defense of relative anymore. It will be defense of stranger. This is vital because if the person making the defense acted out or revenge, resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor, he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the law. On the other hand, if the relative defended is still within the coverage of defense of relative, even though he acted out of some evil motive, it would still apply. It is enough that there was unlawful aggression against the relative defended, and that the person defending did not contribute to the unlawful aggression.
Mistake of fact can be the basis of defending a relative. If the
defender believes in good faith the events presented to him and he acts accordingly, he is entitled to the benefit of defense of relatives, even if later on, the events would actually show that they were different.
DEFENSE OF STRANGER Elements
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
*** A relative not included in defense of relative is included in defense of stranger.
*** Be not induced by evil motive means that even an enemy of the
aggressor who comes to the defense of a stranger may invoke this justifying circumstances so long as he is not induced by a motive that is evil.
STATE OF NECESSITY
A. Art. 11, Par. 4 provides:
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:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
The term damage to another refers to injury to persons and prejudice or damage to property.
The term evil, means harmful, injurious, disastrous, and destructive. As contemplated, it must actually exist. If it is merely expected or anticipated, the one acting by such notion is not in a state of necessity.
B. A state of necessity exists when there is a clash between unequal
rights, the lesser right giving way to the greater right. Aside from the 3 requisites stated in the law, it should also be added that the necessity
must not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by the actor. The state of necessity must not have been created by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.
C. The person for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which may have been received.
This is the only justifying circumstance which provides for the payment of civil indemnity. Under the other justifying circumstances, no civil liability attaches. The courts shall determine, in their sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which one is liable.
Civil liability referred to in a state of necessity is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from the state of necessity. So the
accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any benefit out of the state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate in the damage or injury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of necessity.
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
A. Elements:
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 offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
B. A police officer is justified in shooting and killing a criminal who refuses to stop when ordered to do so, and after such officer fired warning shots in the air.
shooting an offender who refused to surrender is justified, but not a thief who refused to be arrested.
C. The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position he
claimed he was discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. It must be made to appear not only that the injury caused or
the offense committed was done in the fulfillment of a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, but that the offense committed was a necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful exercise of a right or office.
D. A mere security guard has no authority or duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s death.
OBEDIENCE TO A SUPERIOR ORDER A. Elements:
1. there is an order;
2. the order is for a legal purpose;
3. the means used to carry out said order is lawful.
The person giving the order must act within the limitations prescribed by law. The subordinate taking the order must likewise act within the bounds of law. (People vs. Oanis)
B. The subordinate who is made to comply with the order is the party
which may avail of this circumstance. The officer giving the order may
C. The subordinate’s good faith is material here. If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being aware of its illegality, he is not liable. However,
the order must not be patently illegal. If the order is patently illegal this
circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
D. The reason for this justifying circumstance is the subordinate’s mistake of fact in good faith.
E. Even if the order be patently illegal, the subordinate may yet be able to invoke the exempting circumstances of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear.