Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code: Justifying circumstances (self-defense)
Status: In force
What does Article 11 say?
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. 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.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 11 lists six situations where a person who causes harm commits no crime at all. These are called justifying circumstances. The best known is self-defense: if you are unlawfully attacked, you may use reasonable means to stop the attack, as long as you did not provoke it. The same article also protects people who defend a relative or a stranger.
Article 11 says that people in these situations "do not incur any criminal liability". Article 12 is a separate list of exempting circumstances, such as an insane person who did not act during a lucid interval.
How does it work in real life?
Edwin: a bolo attack outside a store
A drunk man swings a bolo at Edwin for no reason. Edwin pushes him to the ground 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 of Article 11(1) appear to be present.
Gary: a threat shouted from across the street
Gary's neighbor stands across the street with empty hands and shouts "Papatayin kita!" Gary runs over and punches him first. A threat without an actual or imminent attack is not unlawful aggression, so the punch is not self-defense. The neighbor's words may be a separate crime, such as grave threats.
Mila: helping a stranger at a jeepney stop
A man starts beating a woman Mila does not know. Mila hits the man with her umbrella until he lets go and runs. This can be defense of a stranger under Article 11(3): there was unlawful aggression, the means were reasonable, and nothing shows Mila acted out of revenge or resentment.
What does this mean in practice?
- The accused must prove it. In Nugas, the Court said that a person who pleads self-defense admits the killing and must prove self-defense by "credible, clear and convincing evidence". Witnesses and medical certificates can matter, as Colinares shows.
- Incomplete self-defense can lower the penalty. When not all the requisites are present, Article 13(1) treats the situation as a mitigating circumstance. Article 69 lowers the penalty by one or two degrees when the majority of the conditions are present. Unlawful aggression is still needed: Nugas quoted an older ruling calling it the main element of both complete and incomplete self-defense.
- The prosecutor and the court decide. Claiming self-defense does not stop a complaint from being filed. Whether Article 11 applies is decided on the evidence.
- For the full question-and-answer guide, see self-defense in the Philippines. When a fight ends in a death, the base crimes are homicide and murder.
What are the six justifying circumstances under Article 11?
| Paragraph | Situation | What must be present |
|---|---|---|
| 11(1) | Defense of your own person or rights | Unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means, lack of sufficient provocation by you |
| 11(2) | Defense of a relative | Unlawful aggression and reasonable means; if the relative provoked the attack, you had no part in it |
| 11(3) | Defense of a stranger | Unlawful aggression and reasonable means; you were not moved by revenge, resentment or another evil motive |
| 11(4) | Avoiding an evil or injury (state of necessity) | The evil really exists, the injury feared is greater than the damage you cause, and there is no other practical and less harmful way |
| 11(5) | Fulfillment of a duty, or lawful exercise of a right or office | The act is done in performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office |
| 11(6) | Obedience to an order of a superior | The order is issued for a lawful purpose |
The first paragraph sets out the three requisites of self-defense:
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.
What counts as unlawful aggression?
Unlawful aggression is the most important requisite. In People v. Nugas (2011), the Supreme Court said that unlawful aggression on the part of the victim "is the primordial element" of self-defense. Without it, there can be no justified killing in self-defense. The Court explained that three things must be present:
- a physical or material attack or assault;
- the attack is actual, or at least imminent (about to happen); and
- the attack is unlawful.
An imminent attack must be real. It must not be a mere threatening attitude, and it must not be imaginary. In Nugas, the accused said the victim punched him and then reached for a clutch bag, which made him believe there was a gun inside. The Court did not believe his story, and he admitted he never actually saw a gun. Self-defense failed and his murder conviction was affirmed.
In Colinares v. People (2011), the Court repeated that "A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough." Self-defense was rejected there because only the accused testified that the other side attacked first, nobody backed up his story, and he presented no medical certificate for his own injuries. See the glossary entry on unlawful aggression.
Can you defend your family or a stranger?
Yes. Article 11(2) covers your spouse, ascendants (parents, grandparents), descendants (children, grandchildren), legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, relatives by affinity in the same degrees (in-laws), and blood relatives within the fourth civil degree.
For relatives and strangers, the first two requisites are still needed: unlawful aggression and reasonable means. The third requisite changes:
- Relatives: if the relative you defended provoked the attack, you are still justified as long as you had no part in that provocation.
- Strangers: you must not be "induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive". A person who joins a fight to settle an old grudge cannot claim defense of a stranger.
What does "reasonable necessity of the means" mean?
The means you use must be reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the attack. Article 11 does not say you must use the same weapon as the attacker. Whether the means were reasonable depends on the facts of each case, and the court weighs the evidence of what happened.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
- Colinares v. People (G.R. No. 182748)Colinares v. People explained: an accused who appealed may still apply for probation when the appeal court lowers the penalty to one that allows it.
- People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981)People v. Genosa explained: how the Supreme Court weighed battered woman syndrome as self-defense, why the defense failed, and why the penalty was cut.
Frequently asked questions
What are the three requisites of self-defense in the Philippines?
Article 11(1) requires all three: unlawful aggression by the victim, reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending himself or herself.
Is a verbal threat enough for self-defense?
No. The Supreme Court has said that a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not unlawful aggression. There must be an actual attack, or an attack that is about to happen, and it must be unlawful.
Can I defend a family member or a stranger?
Yes. Article 11(2) covers the spouse, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters and other listed relatives. Article 11(3) covers strangers. Both still need unlawful aggression and reasonable means. Defense of a stranger also needs a defender not moved by revenge, resentment or another evil motive.
Who has to prove self-defense in court?
The accused. In People v. Nugas (2011), the Supreme Court said that a person who pleads self-defense admits the killing and must prove self-defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence.
What happens if only some requisites are present?
The act is not fully justified, but the penalty can be lowered. Article 13(1) makes incomplete justification a mitigating circumstance. Article 69 lowers the penalty by one or two degrees when most of the conditions are present. In People v. Nugas, the Court quoted an older ruling that unlawful aggression is needed for complete or incomplete self-defense.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?