Dear PAO,
There was an altercation between my cousin and W. W allegedly suffered serious injuries and because of this he filed a criminal complaint against my cousin. My cousin claims he was just defending himself and that W was the one who attacked him. A staff at the Hall of Justice told us that my cousin would need to be able to prove that he was attacked by W first and that such an attack was unjustified in order to support his claim of self-defence. It is assumed that if my cousin could not prove this then he can be held liable for the injuries sustained by W. Is this correct? Isn’t it W’s responsibility as the plaintiff to prove that my cousin committed the murder? Please advise.
Rodel

Dear Rodel,
Self-defense is one of the extenuating circumstances recognized by our law. If proven, the person accused of committing a crime will be exempt from criminal liability. Self-defense is specifically provided for under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which clearly states:

“Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — Does not incur criminal liability:
“1. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or his rights, provided that the following circumstances are met:

First. Unlawful aggression.
“Second. The reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel it.

“Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. xxx” (Emphasis supplied)
As can be deduced from the previous provision, unlawful aggression is an important element of self-defense. Although it is generally the prosecution that has the burden of proving that a crime has been committed, the burden is on the accused if he claims to be exempt from criminal liability on the grounds of self-defence. In such a situation, the defendant has the burden of proving all the elements of self-defense in order to exonerate him from criminal liability.

With regard to the element of unlawful assault, the accused must clearly demonstrate that he or she was indeed attacked by the victim and there was no justification for such an attack. It was explained in detail by the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Randy Gajila y Salazar (GR no. 227502, July 23, 2018):

“In criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the prosecution. However, when the accused pleads self-defense, the burden of proof is transferred from the prosecution to the defense and becomes its burden. the accused to prove, through clear and convincing evidence, the existence of the following conditions of self-defense: firstly, illegal aggression by the victim, secondly, the reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel such aggression; , the lack of a sufficient challenge on the part of the defender.

“In such cases, the accused must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. After all, by invoking self-defense, the accused, in effect, admits that he killed or injured the victim, and he can no longer be acquitted of the charged crime if he does not prove the essential requirements of legitimate defense.
“The most important requirement of self-defense is unlawful aggression, which is the sine qua non to support self-defense as a justifying circumstance. In simpler terms, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim committed an unlawful assault against him. otherwise, “self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, because the other two essentials (thereof) would have no basis in fact and law without some unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.”

“Thus, we explained in People v. Nugas that:
“xxx The test for the presence of unlawful assault in the circumstances is whether the assault by the victim actually endangered the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the danger need not be an imagined or imagined threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful assault, namely: (a) there must be physical or material assault or assault (b) the assault or assault must be actual or at least imminent; the attack or assault must be unlawful.”

Accordingly, if your cousin wishes to be exempted from criminal liability for the injuries sustained by W, he has the burden of proving that he was indeed wrongfully attacked by W, that the means or method used by him to counteract or to defeat the assault is reasonably necessary in the circumstances and that there was no proper provocation on his part.

We hope we were able to answer your questions. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of them. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)