Dear PAO,
There was an altercation between my cousin and W. W was reportedly seriously injured and because of this he filed a criminal complaint against my cousin. My cousin claims he was just defending himself and it was W who attacked him. A courthouse staff member told us that my cousin would have to be able to prove that he was attacked first by W and that such an attack was unjustifiable in order to support his claim of self-defense. Apparently, if my cousin couldn’t prove this, then he could be held responsible for W’s injuries. Is that correct? Isn’t it W’s responsibility, as the plaintiff, to prove that my cousin committed the crime? Please advise.
Rodel

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

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

First of all. Unlawful assault.
“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 added)
As can be inferred from the previous provision, unlawful aggression is an important element of self-defense. Although generally the burden of proving that a crime has been committed lies with the prosecution, the burden shifts to the accused if he or she claims to be exempt from criminal liability on the grounds of self-defense. . In such a situation, the onus is on the accused to prove all the elements of self-defense in order to exonerate him from criminal liability.

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

“In criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when the accused claims self-defense, the burden of proof shifts from the prosecution to defense, and it is the responsibility of the accused to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of the following conditions of self-defense: firstly, an unlawful attack on the part of the victim, secondly, the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such an attack, 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 case. After all, by invoking self-defense, the accused in effect admits to having killed or injured the victim, and he can no longer be acquitted of the crime attributed to him if he does not prove the essential conditions of self-defense.
“The most important condition of self-defense is unlawful aggression, a prerequisite for self-defense to be invoked as a justifying circumstance. In simpler terms, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the victim committed an unlawful attack against him; otherwise, “self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, cannot be appreciated, because the other two essential elements (of it) would have no factual and legal basis without it. no illegal aggression to prevent or repel.”

“Thus, we explained in People v. Nugas que:
“xxx The criterion for determining the presence of an unlawful attack in the circumstances is whether the attack on the victim actually endangers the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the danger must not be an imagined or imaginary threat Consequently, the accused must establish the conjunction of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault (b) the attack or the. The attack must be real or, at least, imminent; the attack or aggression must be illegal.

Thus, if your cousin wishes to be exonerated from any criminal liability for the injuries suffered by W, the onus is on him to prove that he was in fact unjustifiably attacked by W, that the means or methods employed by him to combat or control the The aggression is reasonably necessary in the circumstances and that there was no adequate provocation on his part.

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

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column from the public prosecutor’s office. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)