CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHIFTING OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF (onus probandi) 1. Ladiana vs.

People, 393 SCRA 419 2. People vs. Ulep, GR 132547, September 20, 2000] 3. ANGCACO vs. PEOPLE (378 SCRA 297) 4. PEOPLE vs. PEDRO MONDIJAR (392 SCRA 356, GR 141914, November 21, 2002) JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE 11) SELF-DEFENSE (Paragraph 1) 1. REQUISITES (U-R-P): People vs. Bonnie Rabanal, 387 SCRA 685, GR 146687, August 22, 2002) 2. Mistake of Fact: In US vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil 488), DEFENSE OF PROPERTY 1. self-help in Articles 429, 536 & 539 of the Civil Code 2. People vs. Narvaez (GRN L-33466 April 20, 1983), 3. Defense of property may also be invoked by one who is merely exercising a right, under Article 11, paragraph 5. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION: 1. Concept & definition either actual or imminent. 2. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self defense, whether complete or incomplete 3. Unlawful Aggression is a primordial element (People vs. Bonnie Rabanal, 387 SCRA 685, GR 146687, August 22, 2002). when the unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making the defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor 4. The danger must be actual or imminent. In People vs. Cabungcal,[1]; People vs. De la Cruz,[2] 5. Nature of Aggression (People vs. Bonnie Rabanal, supra). In People vs. Sabio,[3] 6. No unlawful aggression in the following: 7. PATROLMAN ALMEDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS (GR No. 120853, March 13, 1997) AGGRESSION MUST BE IMMEDIATE OR IMMINENT 1. (People vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, GR 146687, 2002 August 22). When the threat coming from the aggressor has been neutralized, the one defending has no right to kill or injure 2. Battered Woman Syndrome, Section 26 RA 9262 REASONABLENESS OF THE MEANS TO REPEL THE AGGRESSION 1. People vs. Bonnie Rabanal, 387 SCRA 685, GR 146687, 2002 August 22) - Number of gunshot wounds may indicate whether the means are reasonable to repel the aggression 2. The law does not require perforce equality but only rational equivalence.

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION: 1. In US vs. Jose Laurel (22 Phil 252), 2. People vs. Dolfo (CA 46 OG 1521), INDICATORS: Self-Defense: 1. nature and number of wounds inflicted , PEOPLE vs. BONNIE RABANAL (supra) 2. Flight from the crime scene betrays a guilty conscience and anathema to the claim of self-defense (People vs. Atadero, 387 SCRA 179). 3. Failure on ones part to inform the police upon surrender that he acted in self-defense is fatal (People vs. Saure, 379 SCRA 128). DEFENSE OF RELATIVES (paragraph 2, Art 11) 1. In People vs. Toring (GR 56358, October 26, 1990, 191 SCRA 47), DEFENSE OF STRANGER (paragraph 3, Art 11) 1. US vs. Subing-subing,[4] 2. People vs. Felix Ventura and Arante Flores[5] AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY (paragraph 4) 1. Article 432 of the Civil Code, 2. PEOPLE vs. NORMA HERNANDEZ (CA 55 OG 8465) 3. TY vs. PEOPLE, (G.R. 149275, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 220) If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR PERFORMANCE OF RIGHT (par 5) 1. People vs. Ernesto Ulep, GR 132547, Sept 2, 2002; 2. Pomoy vs. People, GR 150647, September 29, 2004 439 SCRA 439) 3. Mistake of Fact: In People vs. Oanis, 4. A policeman may shoot a fleeing criminal. In People vs. Delima (46 Phil 738), 5. Self-help doctrine applicable: Art 429 civil code; People vs. Depante (CA 58 OG 926), 6. ANGCACO vs. PEOPLE (378 SCRA 297) OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER (paragraph 6, Art 11) 1. Following an illegal order is not justified. People vs. Margen (85 Phil 839); People vs. Beronilla (96 Phil 566) ADDITIONAL CASES 1. People vs. Mario Marcelo, GR 140385, April 14, 2004 2. Razon vs. People, GR 158053, June 21, 2007 [1] 51 Phil 803 [2] 61 Phil 344 [3] 19 SCRA 901 [4] 31 Phil 376 [5] GR 148145, 2002