Defense of Stranger | What is Article 11, Paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code?

Introduction

We shall discuss defense of stranger. Justifying circumstances is one of the circumstances under the Revised Penal Code that may give an accused a valid defense and state that his act is in accordance of the law and hence lawful and should exempt him from criminal and civil liability. Under the said circumstance, there are six types, among which is defense of the stranger that can be utilized.

The Law

Under the Revised Penal Code, 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.¹

Elements

It should be first clarified that a stranger, for purposes of Paragraph 3, is any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in Art. 11, Paragraph 2, of Revised Penal Code. The provision is clear that it states the: first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance are present.

The first and second requisites are: Unlawful aggression² and Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.³ Whereas for the third requisite, The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.⁴

• The first requisite is unlawful aggression. Like in self-defense, this requisite is the most important since this will make the act of the accused valid. This type of aggression refers to that kind of aggression which put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself.⁵ It should be noted that there must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to inflict real injury.⁶

This type of aggression is a sine qua non, if this first requisite will not be present, the defense of the stranger cannot be validly invoked since there would be nothing to justify the act at the onset, hence the second requisite will have no basis. There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb,⁷ or right is either actual or imminent.

For further discussion, unlawful aggression has two kinds: actual or material unlawful aggression; and, imminent unlawful aggression. For the first type, this pertains that the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence.⁸

An actual or material unlawful aggression is attack that constitutes with physical force or with a use of weapon that shows the intent of the aggressor to incur an injury. Whereas for the second type, that the danger is on the point of happening. It is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late.⁹ This pertains to one that the offender will be experiencing at that moment prior to his act.

• For the second requisite, it is reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. This second necessity depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and extent of the aggression.¹⁰

It should be pointed out that an individual who is in the face of unlawful aggression will act according not with reason of man, but rather on his instinct due to his fight for self-preservation. In the case of defense of the stranger, the defendant belief’s must be reasonable and will use as much force as a reasonable person would use to stop a threat in defending a stranger. In excess of force used would invalidate his act and defense of stranger may not be invoked.

• The third requisite is the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. This requisite provides a definite rule that the defendant in act of a felony should not have a standing grudge against the offended. If he committed the said act with the intention of causing harm due to his own grudge, he may not validly invoke this defense.

Explanation

This third defense absolves a defendant’s criminal and civil liability due to his act of defending a stranger. The basis of this defense is that: the ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.¹¹ It is inherent within us as humans that we protect someone since we believe that this generous act of defending an individual is something others would do as well.

Hence, the State believes that the act of defending a stranger is justifiable as long as it fulfill the requisites to avail such defense. Thus, one cannot invoke this defense if it is found that one of the three requisites is missing—although if 2 of the requisites was evidently proved present, and further provided that one of which should be unlawful aggression.

He may avail it as an incomplete defense of a stranger, a privilege mitigating circumstance, lowering the penalty to be imposed against the defendant by one or two degrees—this is to ensure that such defense cannot be just easily invoked by anyone in the hopes of expunging all his liabilities.

Relevant jurisprudence

It should be noted that like self-defense, defense of a stranger is an affirmative defense.

In the case of Tabobo III vs. People:¹²

One who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the killing. Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger.¹³

That said, admitting responsibility for the said killing, the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived, it rests upon the defendant the burden of proof that he is eligible to the defense of the stranger.

In the case of Mariano vs. People:¹⁴

To properly invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, it must be shown that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, that the means employed to repel the victim were reasonably necessary, and that the accused was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.¹⁵

In this case, the Supreme Court made mention that the state of mind of the accused during an alleged act of self-defense, defense of a relative, or defense of a stranger must be considered in determining whether his or her means of repelling an aggressor were reasonable. The accused in the said case was acquitted of frustrated homicide since all of the elements for the defense of the stranger were present.

However, in the case of People vs. Cabellon:¹⁶

While in the defense of his wife’s brother-in-law, the accused acted also from an impulse of resentment against the deceased, the third requisite of defense of stranger is not present.¹⁷

In this case, it showed the importance that in invoking the defense of a stranger, one should not be induced d by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

Summary

Defense of a stranger is under justifying circumstances and since the act committed is in accordance with the law, the actor has not infringed the law, hence he does not incur any criminal or civil liability. That said, it requires a clear and convincing evidence to prove that:

(1) there is unlawful aggression by the victim;

(2) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and

(3) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

If there are two missing requisites or the first requisite—unlawful aggression—is absent, he cannot validly invoke such defense, however, if there are two requisites—one of the requisites should be unlawful aggression—that are proven present, he can avail the defense as Incomplete Defense of Stranger, a privilege mitigating circumstance.

It should be remembered that it is an affirmative defense, hence, when one invokes the defense of a stranger, he admits that he committed the felony and the presumption of innocence is waived. A number of cases decided by the Supreme Court has shown its application, it acquitted some of the accused and in some, it was not appreciated due to failure to establish clear and convincing evidence.

Conclusion

To conclude, one cannot be held guilty of a crime without being heard. Hence, the law provide valid defenses since there are instances that may be the reason of one such act, one of which is defense of a stranger. The State recognizes that a man will not sit idly when he sees a fellow being in harm’s way, thus a defense of a stranger is placed as a remedy in order for that individual to justify his act.

Such defense can be invoked, and if invoked, it means that he indeed committed such act, and his presumption of innocence is waived. Likewise, the burden to prove that his act is justified rests upon his shoulder, should he be able to satisfy the elements acquits him of his crime, and if not, he is guilty.

1. Art. 11, par. 3, Revised Penal Code[↩]
2. Art. 11, par. 1, Revised Penal Code[↩]
3. Id.[↩]
4. People vs. Moral, No. L-31139, October. 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 474, 485[↩]
5. People v. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606, November 23, 2011[↩]
6. Page 151, Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law: Book 1, by Luis B. Reyes[↩]
7. People vs. Sumicad, G.R. No. L-35524, March 18, 1932, 56 Phil. 643, 647[↩]
8. Page 152, Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law: Book 1, by Luis B. Reyes[↩]
9. Page 152, Ibid.[↩]
10. Page 174, Ibid.[↩]
11. U.S. vs. Aviado, G.R. No. 13397. April 1, 1918, 38 Phil. 10, 13[↩]
12. G.R. No. 220977, June 19, 2017[↩]
13. Ibid.[↩]
14. G.R. No. 224102 July 26, 2017[↩]
15. Ibid.[↩]
16. G.R. No. L-29221, August 8, 1928[↩]
17. Ibid.[↩]