1. Concept
Defense of relatives – refers to a justifying circumstance wherein no criminal liability results for a crime committed by an accused who was defending a relative.
Read more: Justifying circumstances
a. Legal basis
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those 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 revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
(Revised Penal Code)
2. Defense of relatives
For the 2nd justifying circumstance: any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those 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 revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein
a. Elements
Elements for defense of a relative:
1) Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and
3) [Accused] acts in defense of his or her spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. (People v. Catulang, G.R. No. 245969, November 03, 2020, Per Carandang, J.)
NB: The 1st and 2nd elements are the same for self-defense (A11[1]), defense of relatives (A11[2]), and defense of strangers (A11[3]). They only differ in the 3rd element. Thus, for the following discussions related to the 1st and 2nd elements, refer to related discussions in Self-defense (A11[1]).
1) Element 1: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
See related discussions in Self-defense (A11[1]).
2) Element 2: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
See related discussions in Self-defense (A11[1]).
3) Element 3: He/he acts in defense of his/her spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his/her relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
The defense is specific individuals related to the accused:
1) His/her spouse, ascendants;
2 Descendants;
3) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters; or
4) His/her relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
People v. Catulang, G.R. No. 245969, November 03, 2020, Per Carandang, J.:
• [B]ased from the testimonies of Manuel and Poly, Romy was already unarmed when Poly stabbed him. Manuel and Romy were grappling with each other when Poly stabbed Romy. There was no actual or imminent threat to the life, limb or right of Manuel or Poly. Manuel testified that while they were wrestling with each other, there were times that he was on top of Romy and that Romy was on his top. This proves that both of them had equal strength in fighting each other and that Romy did not show any threat to him. Manuel did not testify that he was having a difficult time fighting Romy or that there was imminent peril to his life or limb. These circumstances belie the claim that there was unlawful aggression from the victim.
• Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. In this case, the unlawful aggression ceased when Manuel was able to disarm Romy and they began to grapple with each other. Manuel and Poly’s acts of attacking Romy amounted to retaliation, wherein the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him. Thus, there was no unlawful aggression anymore on the part of the deceased.
• Further, Poly continued to stab Romy on his chest despite the latter not having anything to defend himself from such attack. Based from Poly’s testimony, he initially stabbed Romy on the back while Romy and Manuel were grappling with each other. When Romy stood up and faced him, he continued to stab Romy in the chest, not remembering how many stabs he inflicted to the victim. As mentioned above, the unlawful aggression already ceased to exist when Manuel was able to disarm Romy, thus Poly’s attacks to the victim was not reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Hence, the claim of self-defense and defense of a relative by the accused-appellants Manuel and Poly must fail.
People v. Mediado, G.R. No. 169871, February 2, 2011, Per Bersamin, J.:
• As the CA pointed out, however, Jose did not support his claim that Jimmy had committed aggression by punching Rodolfo and by throwing stones at him and his father. In fact, he and his father were not able to identify any weapon used by Jimmy aside from the stone that he supposedly picked up from the ground. Even that testimony was contrary, for Jose testified that he had unsheathed his bolo and hacked Jimmy after dodging the stone thrown at him. Plainly, he did not establish with clear and convincing proof that Jimmy had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of them an imminent threat of great harm before he mounted his own attack on Jimmy.
• Moreover, the post-mortem examination disclosed that Jimmy had sustained a total of seven wounds: two incised wounds and five hack wounds. Three of the hack wounds were inflicted on Jimmy’s neck, one of which fatally extended to and cut the trachea, esophagus, and the carotid and jugular vessels that supplied blood to the heart and brain of Jimmy. Dr. Moll Lee, the medico-legal expert, opined at the trial that the injuries were possibly sustained by Jimmy from the assailant who was behind him and while he was already down. This opinion was consistent with Lilia’s testimony to the effect that Jose had attacked Jimmy from behind as well as when Jimmy was already lying on the ground. The nature, number, and gravity of Jimmy’s wounds spoke not of defense on the part of Jose but of a criminal intent to kill Jimmy. They indicated beyond doubt the treacherous manner of the assault, that is, that Jose thereby ensured that the killing would be without risk and would deny to Jimmy any opportunity to defend himself.
3. Things to note
The following are some additional things to note about this offense.
a. Retaliation
Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. (Belbis, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012, Per Peralta, J.)
Belbis, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012, Per Peralta, J.:
• [T]he unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased when [the Accused] Rodolfo was able to get hold of the bladed weapon. Although there was still some struggle involved between the victim and [the Accused] Rodolfo, there is no doubt that the latter, who was in possession of the same weapon, already became the unlawful aggressor. 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 Such an aggression can also be surmised on the four stab wounds sustained by the victim on his back. It is hard to believe based on the location of the stab wounds, all at the back portion of the body (right lumbar area, left lumbar area, left buttock, medial aspect and left buttock, lateral aspect), that [the Accused] Rodolfo was defending himself. It would have been different if the wounds inflicted were located in the front portion of the victim’s body.
References
• Title I – Felonies and Circumstances which Affect Criminal Liability, Book I, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code
