Self Defense Criminal Law - Right to Self Defense in Criminal Law { 2021} - Limburg 60

Latest

Recent Posts

Thursday, 11 November 2021

Self Defense Criminal Law - Right to Self Defense in Criminal Law { 2021}

 Self Defense Criminal Law

SELF-HELP PRINCIPLE - In People vs. Apolinar, CA, 38 O.G. 2870, it was held: Self Defense Criminal Law of property is not of such importance as right to life, and Self Defense Criminal Law of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it's coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property. However, in People vs. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, the SC found the presence of unlawful aggression despite the fact that the invasion of his property right wasn't coupled with an attack against the accused. 

self defence criminal law

which provides: “The proprietor or legal proprietor of a thing has the right to count any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use similar force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.”

However, since the means employed to resist the invader (killing) is not reasonable, the indicted is simply given the benefit of incomplete self defense Criminal Law. Justice Florenz Regalado stated that the rule in the Apolinar case may be deemed to have been superseded by the Narvaez case.

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION – The essential requisites of Self Defense Criminal Law are the following:

1. unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 

2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to help or repel similar aggression; and 

3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to Bring self-defense. Verily, to invoke Self Defense Criminal Law successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that risk the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to repel the attack (Belbis, Jr. vs. People, GR No. 181052, Nov 14, 2012).

The rule consistently adhered to during this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is Self Defense Criminal Law he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. The principle for the shifting of the burden of proof is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. 

But the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt isn't thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof. 

He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, considering that the Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, can't be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing (People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013).

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can be no Self Defense Criminal Law, whether complete or incomplete, that can validly be invoked. “There is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. 

There must be Factual actual physical force or Factual use of a weapon.” It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one’s life. It must be nonstop; else,, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense (People vs. Gamez, GR No. 202847, Oct 23, 2013). Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely:

1. there must be a physical or material attack or assault; 

2. the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (

3. the attack or assault must be unlawful (People vs. Roman, GR No. 198110, July 31, 2013).

Criminal law Philippines

Decriminalization Law


No comments:

Post a Comment