Dear PAO,
There was an argument between my cousin and W. W was alleged to have sustained serious injuries and because of that he filed a criminal complaint against my cousin. My cousin claims he was just defending himself and it was W who attacked him. We were told by a staff member at the Hall of Justice that my cousin should be able to prove that he was first attacked by W and that such an attack is unjustifiable to sustain his claim of self-defence. Allegedly, if my cousin could not prove this, then he could be held liable for the damages sustained by W. Is this correct? Isn’t it W as the complainant’s responsibility to prove that my cousin committed the crime? Please advise.
Toboggan

Dear Rodel,
Self-defense is one of the motivating circumstances recognized under our law. If proven, the person accused of having committed the crime will be exonerated from criminal liability. Self-defense is specifically provided under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, which clearly states:

“Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following incur no criminal liability:
“1. Whoever acts in defense of his person or his rights, provided that the following circumstances are met:

First. Unlawful aggression.
“Secondly. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.

“Third. Lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending himself. xxx” (emphasis added)
As can be inferred from the preceding provision, unlawful aggression is an important part of self-defense. Although the prosecution generally bears the burden of proof that a crime has been committed, the burden shifts to the defendant if he or she claims immunity from criminal liability due to emergency. In such a situation, the onus is on the accused to prove all elements of self-defense to exonerate him or her from criminal liability.

In the case of unlawful aggression, it must be clearly shown by the accused that he or she was indeed attacked by the victim and that there was no justification for such an attack. It has been carefully explained 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 is on the prosecutor to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when the accused invokes the emergency defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecutor to the defense, and it is incumbent on the accused to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of the following requirements of self-defense: first, unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel such aggression; , lack of sufficient provocation 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 emergency defense, the accused is in effect admitting that he killed or injured the victim, and he can no longer is acquitted of the charged crime if he cannot prove the essential emergency defense requirements.
“The most important requirement of emergency defense is unlawful aggression, which is an absolute condition for maintaining self-defense as a motivating circumstance. In simpler terms, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim committed unlawful aggression against him. Otherwise, “self-defense, whether it is complete or incomplete, is not appreciated, for the other two essential parts (of it) would have no factual and legal basis without some unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.”

“Therefore, in People v. Nugas, we declared that:
“xxx The test for the existence of unlawful aggression in the circumstances is whether the aggression by the victim created an actual danger to the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the danger must not be an imagined or fancied threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish consistency between three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or at least imminent; the attack or assault must be unlawful.”

Accordingly, if your cousin wishes to be exonerated from criminal liability for the injuries sustained by W, he has the burden of proving that he was indeed unjustifiably attacked by W, that the means or method he used to repulse or subdue the aggression is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, and that there was no adequate provocation on his part.

We hope we have been able to answer your questions. This advice is based solely on the facts you have told us and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary as other facts change or develop.

Editor’s Note: Dear PAO is a daily column on the Public Prosecution Service. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)