Justifying circumstances, A11 Revised Penal Code

Justifying circumstances – refers to defenses that provide for lawful justifications or reasons as to why the accused committed the crime and thereby resulting in no criminal liability.

1. Concept

Justifying circumstances – refers to defenses that provide for lawful justifications or reasons as to why the accused committed the crime and thereby resulting in no criminal liability.

An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the commission of acts, which would otherwise engender criminal liability. However, he asserts that he is justified in committing the acts. In the process of proving a justifying circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed acts, which may justify the existence of an offense were it not for the exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the evidence for the accused fails to prove the existence of justifying circumstances. (Velasquez v. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017, Per Leonen, J.)

a. Legal basis

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;

First. Unlawful aggression.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

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.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not 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.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

(Revised Penal Code)

b. Effects of justifying circumstances

1) Admission by the accused

2) Burden shifts to accused

The accused’s admission enables the prosecution to dispense with discharging its burden of proving that the accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the basis of criminal liability. All that remains to be established is whether the accused were justified in acting as he or she did. To this end, the accused’s case must rise on its own merits. (Velasquez v. People, supra.)

3) Quantum of proof: clear and convincing evidence

[T]he defense is not required to prove, with absolute certainty, the facts constituting its defense. The accused is required only to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the justifying circumstances he has invoked. Clear and convincing evidence has been described as more than mere preponderance, but the proof required is less than that required of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Bayle v. People, G.R. No. 210975, March 11, 2020, Per Reyes, J. Jr., J.)

[W]hen an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. (Belbis, Jr. v. Brucales, G.R. No. 181052, November 14, 2012, Per Peralta, J.)