Dear PAO,
There was an altercation between my cousin and W. W allegedly sustained serious injuries and because of that, he filed a criminal complaint against my cousin. My cousin claims that he merely defended himself and it was W who attacked him. We were told by a staff at the Hall of Justice that my cousin should be able to prove that he was attacked first by W and that such attack is unjustifiable in order to sustain his claim of self-defense. Allegedly, 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 the responsibility of W, as the complainant, to prove that my cousin committed the crime? Please advise.
Rodel

Dear Rodel,
Self-defense is one of the justifying circumstances recognized under our law. If it is proven, the person being accused of committing a crime will be exempt 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 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” (Emphasis supplied)
As can be gleaned from the foregoing provision, unlawful aggression is an important element of self-defense. Although generally, it is the prosecution who has the burden of proving that a crime has been committed, the burden shifts to the accused if he or she claims to be exempt from criminal liability on account of self-defense. In such a situation, it becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense in order to exculpate him or her from criminal liability.

On the element of unlawful aggression, it must be clearly shown by the accused that he or she was indeed attacked by the victim and there was no justification for such attack. It has been thoroughly 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 lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defense, and it becomes incumbent upon 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; second, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression and third; , lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

“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 having killed or injured the victim, and he can no longer be acquitted of the crime charged if he fails to prove the essential requirements of self-defense.
“The most important requirement of self-defense is unlawful aggression which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying 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 complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, for the two other essential elements (thereof) would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.’

“Thus, we explained in People v. Nugas that:
“xxx The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of 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 and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.”

Accordingly, if your cousin wants to be exempt 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 employed by him to fight back or subdue the aggression is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, and that there was no adequate provocation on his part.

We hope that we were able to answer your questions. 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.

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)