Dear PAO,

My boss and I were walking on our way home from a gig. He was abruptly punched in the side of his face and nape by three individuals. He was shocked and did nothing. I saw one of them opening a fan knife. When he was about to stab my boss, I grabbed a rock and threw it in the assailant’s head as he was ready to attack my boss. He stumbled and dropped the knife he was holding. I threw several punches on the guy while his two friends left him. He retreated as well after realizing he was by himself. Will self-defense lie in my favor?

Richie

Dear Richie,

Justifying circumstances are those conditions that, if found to be present or attendant in the commission of a felony, the offender is said to have acted within the bounds of the law, and therefore there was no transgression in the eyes of the law. As a result, there is no crime committed. There is no criminal liability, and as a rule, there is also no civil liability because there is no crime committed.

One such circumstance is defense of a stranger, which is enshrined in Article 11(3) of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, to wit:

“ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — 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 xxx

“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.”

From the foregoing, the elements of the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger are as follows:

1. Unlawful aggression;

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and

3. The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

In your case, the first element is present since there was unlawful aggression when the individual was about to stab your boss. The second element may also be present because you were unarmed and you simply saw a rock, picked it up and hit the attacker’s head, which cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the aggression shown by the assailant. Rather, it appears to be the only available means that you knew to prevent the assailant from stabbing your boss. Likewise, the third element is present because there was no showing that you were induced by any other motive other than to help your boss. Thus, defense of a stranger may lie in your favor.

Note, however, that if you are charged in court and you raised, as a defense, the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, you are in effect admitting the acts that would constitute the crime charged. However, you are avoiding criminal responsibility by saying that your act is justified. The moment you raise this as a defense, the trial will be inverted and the burden of proof will shift on you to prove that the elements of defense of a stranger.

The case of People vs. Del Castillo et al. (G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012), penned by Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, explained the nature of self-defense, which equally applies to defense of a stranger, as follows:

“The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense 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 rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence 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 reasonable doubt is not 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.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was 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.

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 [email protected]