Dear PAO,
I heard that a person may be exempt from criminal liability if he acts in a “state of necessity.” What does this concept mean under our law, and in what circumstance does it apply?
River
Dear River,
Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), an act that would ordinarily constitute a crime may be exempt from criminal liability if it was committed under a state of necessity and all the required legal conditions are present. Article 11 of the RPC enumerates the justifying circumstances. Paragraph 4 thereof provides, in substance, that a person incurs no criminal liability, viz.:
“ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstance. — The following do not incur any criminal liability: x x x 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.”
In the case of People vs. Rebutado (GR 124058, Dec. 10, 2003), the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., explained:
“It is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. x x x
“The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance. It is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and killing the victim, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution... xxx”
Thus, as derived from the Revised Penal Code and jurisprudence, the invocation of state of necessity requires that all of the following elements be present:
1. There must be an actual or imminent danger, meaning a real, serious and immediate threat to a legally protected interest, not a remote, speculative or future fear.
2. The harm sought to be avoided must be greater than the harm caused, such that the evil prevented clearly outweighs the injury inflicted.
3. There must be no other less harmful means of avoiding the danger, as a state of necessity is a measure of last resort. If a reasonable and less injurious alternative exists and is not taken, the defense cannot apply.
4. The person exposed to the danger must not be legally bound to face it, because one who is required by law or duty to assume the risk cannot ordinarily invoke a state of necessity to evade that obligation by harming others; the person in peril must be legally entitled to preserve his life or property.
5. The danger must not have been caused or deliberately provoked by the accused, since one who creates or instigates the peril cannot later invoke a state of necessity as a defense.
A state of necessity does not grant a general license to cause harm to others. It is a narrowly defined doctrine and is not a blanket excuse for criminal acts committed under difficult circumstances. Since a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance, the presence of all its elements renders the act lawful and warrants the acquittal of the accused. However, it is strictly construed and must be established by clear and convincing evidence.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
We appreciate your 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.
