Dear PAO,
Jose attacked and punched my brother. He also strangled my brother when the latter was already lying on the ground. My brother grabbed a stone from the ground and he used it to hit the face of Jose. Jose died as a consequence. My brother claims self-defense but the relatives of Jose said that my brother used excessive force so the means employed is not commensurate or reasonable under the circumstances. Please enlighten us on the requirement of reasonable necessity of means employed.
Kumekume
Dear Kumekume,
Self-defense is one of the justifying circumstances found in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as amended, which reads:
“Article 11. 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.” (Underscoring supplied)
Self-defense and the element of “reasonable necessity of the means employed” was fully expounded by the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines vs. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018, penned by Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, as follows:
“In judging pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger, xxx [t]he test is whether his subjective belief as to the imminence and seriousness of the danger was reasonable or not, and the reasonableness of his belief must be viewed from his standpoint at the time he acted. The right of a person to take life in self-defense arises from his belief in the necessity for doing so; and his belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged in the light of the circumstances as they then appeared to him, not in the light of circumstances as they would appear to others or based on the belief that others may or might entertain as to the nature and imminence of the danger and the necessity to kill.”
The high court went further and said that:
“Reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the unlawful aggression does not mean absolute necessity. It must be assumed that one who is assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and make comparisons that can easily be made in the calmness of reason. The law requires rational necessity, not indispensable need. In each particular case, it is necessary to judge the relative necessity, whether more or less imperative, in. accordance with the rules of rational logic. The accused may be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether or not he employed rational means to repel the aggression.”
Thus, reasonable necessity of the means employed does not mean absolute necessity. Rational necessity is sufficient. Moreover, it should be viewed from the standpoint of the person defending himself/herself, not from the standpoint of others, especially of someone who is not exposed to the danger and has the luxury of judging the situation with calmness of reason. Ultimately, the means employed by your brother will be viewed based on the circumstances as they appeared to him.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
