Self-Defense in the Philippines: When Is It Legal?

Article 11 lists the "justifying circumstances". The first one is self-defense:

"Concur" means all three must be present together.

Unlawful aggression is the most important requisite. In People v. Nugas (2011), the Supreme Court called it the "primordial element" and said that without it, "there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself."

The Court listed three elements of unlawful aggression:

1. there is a physical or material attack or assault;
2. the attack is actual, or at least imminent; and
3. the attack is unlawful.

"Imminent" means the attack is impending or about to happen. It must not be a mere threatening attitude or something imagined. The Court gave examples: aiming a gun at someone with intent to shoot, or opening a knife and making a motion to attack, can be imminent aggression. Pressing a hand to the hip where a gun is holstered, with an angry face, is only a threatening attitude.

In Colinares v. People (2011), the Supreme Court said unlawful aggression contemplates "an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger of such attack". It added: "A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough."

The second requisite asks whether the means used to prevent or repel the attack were reasonably necessary. The response is judged against the attack.

The third requisite asks whether the person defending gave sufficient provocation. If he or she started the trouble, self-defense may fail.

The accused. In Nugas, the Court said: "By pleading self-defense, an accused admits the killing". The accused then has to prove self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence. If that fails, the admission of the killing can lead to conviction.

In Nugas, the accused said the victim punched him and leaned forward as if to get something from a clutch bag, so he stabbed him, thinking it was a gun. He admitted he did not actually see a gun. The Court rejected self-defense and affirmed his conviction for murder.

In Colinares, the accused said the victim attacked him first. No one backed up his story, and he presented no medical certificate of his own injuries. The Court rejected self-defense. (The same case is famous for a probation ruling: see Who can apply for probation?)

Yes. Article 11 has two more paragraphs:

• Defense of relatives (paragraph 2): defending a spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Unlawful aggression and reasonable means are needed. If the relative provoked the attack, the person defending must have had no part in the provocation.
• Defense of a stranger (paragraph 3): unlawful aggression and reasonable means are needed, and the person defending must not be driven by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

Article 11 also mentions defense of "rights". Defense of property is a separate question that we do not cover here.

If some requisites are missing, the act is not fully justified. Article 13, paragraph 1 makes it a mitigating circumstance: it can lower the penalty, but the person is still liable. Article 69 goes further: if the majority of the conditions are present, the penalty shall be one or two degrees lower than the one prescribed by law.

These are made-up examples. They are not advice for any real case.

Edwin is walking home when a drunk man swings a bolo at him. Edwin pushes the man away and grabs the bolo. The attack was actual (unlawful aggression), pushing and disarming him was reasonable, and Edwin did nothing to provoke it. All three requisites may be present.

Gary's neighbor shouts "Papatayin kita!" from across the street, with empty hands. Gary runs over and hits him first. A mere threat is not unlawful aggression, so this is not self-defense.

Lito sees a man attacking his younger brother with a knife. Lito hits the attacker with a piece of wood to stop him. This may be defense of a relative, even if Lito's brother had started the quarrel, as long as Lito had no part in that provocation.

Whether self-defense is proven is always for the court to decide, based on the evidence. If the person is charged, see Is murder bailable? and How much is bail?

Immediately, if you or a relative hurt or killed someone and claim self-defense. Because the accused must prove it with clear and convincing evidence, a lawyer helps gather medical records, photos, witness statements and CCTV early. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines for the Public Attorney's Office (PAO).