Self-Defense Claim A Dear Pao ,article

[Call me bubba]

we know that if we try to"protect " ourselves (self defense) they maybe a risk'

here is another DEAR PAO ARTICLE that answers the SELF DEFENSE question 

 

Dear PAO,
My wife and I live in a chaotic neighborhood where crimes are unusually high these days. This bothers me a lot since I am an OFW, and I am usually out of the country and therefore my wife is almost always left alone in our house. I got her a handy double- bladed knife that she can use to defend herself if anything bad happens to her in our house. Because of this I am curious to know if an untoward incident occurred wherein someone trespassed in our house and made an attempt against my wife and as a result that violator was injured or even killed by my wife, could we properly claim self-defense to absolve us of any criminal liability?
Joe

Dear Joe,

While self-defense is a legally recognized justification for committing an act that would ordinarily be considered as a crime such as killing or injuring a person, you should know that the law requires the presence of specific circumstances before it can be availed of as a proper legal defense.

 

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC) provides that:

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

1.    Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided 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.”

 

First, one of the circumstances that is required to be present to avail the defense of self-defense is the presence of unlawful aggression.

The Supreme Court elaborated on this matter in one of its decisions, which states that:|

 

“A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements. However, the most important among all the elements is the element of unlawful aggression.

 

Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. As this court said in People v. Catbagan, “There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.”

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault,

or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It “presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger–not merely threatening and intimidating action.”

It is present “only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life” (People of the Philippines vs. Dolorido, G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011).

 

Second,

the requirement of reasonable necessity of the means used to defend one’s self from an unlawful aggression entails the use of reasonable means of self- defense that is commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted

 

(People of the Philippines vs. Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003).

 

And whether the means employed is reasonable depends on the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and the occasion of the assault

(J.B.L.Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 2008 ed., p. 180).

 

This means that the determination of reasonableness of the means employed for self-defense relies on the appreciation of the facts surrounding that incident that required the use of self-defense.

 

Third, the law requires that the person claiming self-defense should not have given sufficient provocation for the victim to attack or commit aggression against the former. Once all of these are proven before the court, then you and your wife may use self-defense as a legal justification to avoid criminal liability.

 

To summarize, to be able to successfully invoke self-defense, your wife must have been the subject of a real and imminent threat, which represents the unlawful aggression made upon her. There must also be reasonableness in her use of a knife or any other weapon as her means to defend herself. And finally, there should be no provocation on her part that caused her aggressor to harm her.

 

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

 

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.manilatimes.net/one-can-claim-self-defense-only-under-specific-circumstances/161759/

[Mike S]

With these 3 terms 1) presence of unlawful aggression...... 2) reasonable necessity ..... 3) sufficient provocation .......  I can now see why the American was killed by the 4 rich boys in Manila and why they were not charged with murder under the 3 terms above it was clearly self-defense ..... a very interesting set of  rules or laws as it were ..... and open to much interpretation ..... looks like those with a little money can wiggle their way out without to much problem ..... JMHO

:cheersty: 

[Jack Peterson]

looks like those with a little money can wiggle their way out without to much problem ..... JMHO

 

 

:unsure:  I wonder if these three terms would apply to a Foreigner committing any crime. :rolleyes:  at the BOI I think sufficient provocation would be the one for me. :hystery:

 

Just Saying.

 

JP :tiphat:

[Thomas]

With these 3 terms 1) presence of unlawful aggression...... 2) reasonable necessity ..... 3) sufficient provocation .......  I can now see why the American was killed by the 4 rich boys in Manila and why they were not charged with murder under the 3 terms above it was clearly self-defense ..... a very interesting set of  rules or laws as it were ..... and open to much interpretation ..... looks like those with a little money can wiggle their way out without to much problem ..... JMHO

:cheersty:

Well. The American

made provocation

made PERHAPS an unlawful aggression (it's out of video. Probably he did)

 

BUT ODD IF it's  "reasonable necessity" to stab the American to death, when he try to GET AWAY...

[jpbago]

In this recent case, a PO1 killed a man in self defense but still faces a case filed by the police department even if the victim's family does not file a case. Self defense is a bit off as the PO1 shot him once in the shoulder and then once in the back as the victim was running away. He also missed 5 times. It was market day with hundreds of people all around running for cover. In reading the article, with respect to Philippine journalism, it says the the PO1 was released from the police station but at the end, it says that he is still in the hospital. Side note is that Bacolod is proposing to do away with these barkers.

 

Monday, February 9, 2015

A POLICEMAN who was the suspect in the killing of a bus barker was released Friday evening from the custody of Bago City Police Station after the reglementary period had lapsed.

Supt. Arnel Arpon, chief of Bago City Police Station, yesterday said Police Officer 1 Eric Granada was released at about 10 p.m. Friday.

Granada, assigned at the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office (Noppo), was the suspect in the killing of Resty Tipawan, 43, of Barangay Poblacion, Bago City last week.

Advertisement

Granada was wounded in his right face when Tipawan also shot him using a .38 caliber.

At around 10 a.m. of February 5, Granada was about to park his Innova vehicle in front of Bago City Public Market when Tipawan disallowed him because the location is the “unloading and loading” area for double-tire vehicles.

Granada stopped his vehicle and saw a gun in Tipawan’s waistband. When he confronted him, Tipawan shot him, Arpon said.

The policeman, using his .9mm caliber, shot the victim twice. Tipawan was rushed to the Bago City Hospital where he was declared dead.

Arpon said they are still waiting for the family of the victim to file a criminal case against Granada.

Aside of the criminal case, Arpon said Granada, who is still confined at the Bacolod Adventist Medical Center, will also face an administrative case to be filed by Noppo.

[Jack Peterson]

 The Thing is, if the American had Killed the 4 young Rich guys that were attacking him. Would he have been Charged with Murder or would the Self Defence thing come in. Hmmmmmmmmmm I rather think Not so we go back to the Them and Us thing.  Do we not?

 

 

JP :tiphat:

[Thomas]

 The Thing is, if the American had Killed the 4 young Rich guys that were attacking him. Would he have been Charged with Murder or would the Self Defence thing come in. Hmmmmmmmmmm I rather think Not so we go back to the Them and Us thing.  Do we not?

 

JP :tiphat:

Well. The drunk American STARTED it, so he can't claim self-defemce,

so the Filipinos can claim self defence CORECT in STARTUP

BUT itt's crazy if the KILLING part is found self defence, because then the American try to GET AWAY, so no risk for the Filipinos no more...

[Jack Peterson]

Well. The drunk American STARTED it, so he can't claim self-defemce,

 

 

Starting a Problem is not the basis of it. If his life is threated at some stage by One of the 4 pulling a Knife then Of course he can claim self defence. Did he pull a Knife,? I don't remember this being reported. So they Certainly can't claim Self defence.

 

JP

[Thomas]

 

Well. The drunk American STARTED it, so he can't claim self-defemce,

 

 

Starting a Problem is not the basis of it. If his life is threated at some stage by One of the 4 pulling a Knife then Of course he can claim self defence. Did he pull a Knife,? I don't remember this being reported. So they Certainly can't claim Self defence.

 

JP

Do you mean the threat have to be DEADLY to be allowed to use self defense?

I don't.

 

If a much biger (ex) military ATTACK only with body, I see it as OK self defence to pick up a knife and even use it, IF picking it up don't stop the attack,

BUT the self defence situation for the Filipinos ENDED, when the American tried to GET AWAY...

 

(The main question was anyway if the FILIPINOS can claim self defence. The American has got "death penalty" allready...)

[Jack Peterson]

The main question was anyway if the FILIPINOS can claim self defence.

 How on earth can they, they attacked the American!

 

Thomas he did did not start it, he intervened in an abusive verbal attack on the Security guard. The Report said that  the Aggression started from the 4 young men and ending in His Death by the events that Followed, My offering was, suppose he had Killed one of the 4. Would that be considered self defence.  

 

JP :tiphat: