Justifying Circumstances

Justifying circumstances are instances where a person has no criminal and civil liability. For a justifying circumstance to be accepted, it must be pleaded and proven in court. Philippine courts are passive bodies and only act on the information is given them. The justifying circumstances are:

1.) Self-defense

This includes defense of your property and rights. For a valid plea of self-defense, you must prove that you did not provoke your assailant into attacking you, that there was actual or imminent aggression (a threatening attitude won't do,) and the means to defend yourself were reasonably necessary. Regarding the third requisite, "reasonable necessity" means your self-preservation instincts kick in. What you used may be disproportionately unfair but still valid when you consider the other circumstances (time of day, size of opponent, etc.) and jurists agree that a guy defending himself with a shotgun could invoke self-defense against an attacker armed only with a knife if he could prove that it was the only weapon he had.

Self-defense, however, does not include running after the attacker after you warded him off unless you're a member of the police.

2.) Defense of a relative

Here, reasonable necessity of means and actual or imminent aggression still stand but provocation is modified. The relative may be the one provoked by the attacker but the defender must show that he wasn't provoked by the attacker. An example of this is when a father returns from work to find his daughter being raped. The father kills the rapist by slamming a solid wooden chair on his head while the rapist is still doing his thing.

3.) Defense of a stranger

Once again, reasonable necessity of means and actual or imminent aggression come into play. There is not provocation here. Instead, the defender must not be motivated by hate, revenge or any other evil motive. The stranger may include your boss, subordinate or friend since a stranger is defined as someone who isn't a relative.

4.) State of necessity

This is the only justifying circumstance where a civil liability is present. It happens when somebody does something that causes damage to another person (or his property) in order to avoid any evil thing happening to himself or another person. All of the following must be present:

A person does an evil act which is lesser than the evil thing that he wants to avoid and there is no other practical or harmless way to prevent it. That person must pay a civil liability. If it was done to prevent something evil happening to another person, that other person must pay the civil liability.

5.) Fulfillment of lawful duty/exercise of right/office

The person in question was doing his lawful duty and the injury happened while he was doing it. He must prove that he was the holder of that position when he was performing his duty. This usually happens when the police are in hot pursuit or when a criminal refuses to surrender. It won't apply, unfortunately, to a security guard if he kills a thief who refuses to stop. A security guard's law enforcement power is up to prevention only. A security guard can only kill if he's defending, not pursuing. A prison guard, however, can kill an escaped prisoner.

6.) Obedience to superior order

Here, there is a lawful order and the means to carry it out are lawful. Good faith on the subordinate's part is crucial here. If he honestly believed that the order was legal, he can claim this justifying circumstance -even if the order was illegal. Members of the Armed Forces fall into this category. If, however, the subordinate knew the order wasn't lawful, he can still escape criminal liability if he can prove the exempting circumstances of uncontrollable fear or irresistible force. We'll take that up later. Justifying and exempting circumstances aren't the same.