Self-defense as justifying circumstance

“JUSTIFYING circumstances are those where the act of the person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law…” (The Revised Penal Code [R.P.C.], Reyes, 1981).

“There being no crime committed, the persons defending themselves incur no criminal liability” (Article 11, Revised Penal Code).

“An accused who pleads a justifying circumstance… admits to the commission of acts which would otherwise engender criminal liability… [I]n the process of proving justifying circumstance, the accused risks admitting the imputed acts…[c]onviction follows if the evidence for the accused fails to prove the existence of [the] justifying circumstances” (The R.P.C., Reyes, 2021 citing Velasquez v. People).

“Self-defense includes not only the defense of the persons or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights… which is protected by law. ‘Aside from the right to life on which rests the legitimate defense of our person, we have the right to property…, and the right to honor which is not the least prized of man’s patrimony.’” (The R.P.C., Reyes, 1981 and 2021 citing 1 Viada, 172, 173, 5th Ed.).

Self-defense is lawful “[b]ecause it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens (and even foreigners, of course) and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked.

“On the other hand, it cannot be conceived that a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression without offering any resistance” (The R.P.C., Reyes, 2021 citing Guevarra).

“Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt… [W]hen the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence” (People v. Samson, G.R. 214883, September 02, 2015).

“To invoke self-defense… it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence… the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC, viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself” (People v. Samson, G.R. 214883, September 02, 2015). Unlawful aggression

There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. Full column at www.manilastandard.net

There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself