Unlawful Aggression: Meaning in Philippine Law
Quick answer
Unlawful aggression is an actual or imminent unlawful physical attack on a person. It is the first and most important requisite of self-defense under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code. Without it, a person cannot claim self-defense, and a mere threatening look or gesture does not count.
Where does the term come from?
Article 11 lists the circumstances that remove criminal liability. For self-defense it says:
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.
Unlawful aggression is also required for defense of a relative and defense of a stranger (Article 11, paragraphs 2 and 3).
What counts as unlawful aggression?
In People v. Nugas (2011), the Supreme Court gave three elements:
- there is a physical or material attack or assault;
- the attack is actual, or at least imminent;
- the attack is unlawful.
The Court also described two kinds. Actual aggression is an attack with physical force or a weapon. Imminent aggression is an attack that is about to happen. It "must not consist in a mere threatening attitude", nor be merely imagined.
In Colinares v. People (2011), the Court repeated the rule: unlawful aggression is an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or the imminent danger of one, and "A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough."
Who has to prove it?
The person who claims self-defense. Nugas says that by pleading self-defense, the accused admits the killing and must prove the defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence.
Example
Made-up illustration: A drunk man swings a bolo at Edwin. Edwin pushes him away and grabs the bolo. The attack was actual, so there was unlawful aggression. Compare Gary, also made up, whose neighbor shouts "Papatayin kita!" from across the street with empty hands. A threat like that, without an actual or imminent attack, is not unlawful aggression, so Gary could not claim self-defense if he hit the neighbor first.
Where can I read more?
See Self-defense in the Philippines for the other two requisites and how courts weigh the evidence, and Grave threats if you were only threatened.
Which provisions use this term?
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
Frequently asked questions
Is a verbal threat unlawful aggression?
Not by itself. The Supreme Court said in People v. Nugas (2011) and Colinares v. People (2011) that a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough. There must be an actual or imminent physical attack.
Who must prove self-defense?
The accused. In People v. Nugas (2011), the Court said that by pleading self-defense the accused admits the killing and must prove the defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence.
Can there be self-defense without unlawful aggression?
No. Unlawful aggression is the first requisite in Article 11, and the Supreme Court calls it the primordial element. Without it, there is no justified defense of oneself.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?