The defendant has the burden of proving self-defense

Dear PAO,
It was claimed that WW was seriously injured in an argument with my cousin, and therefore she filed a criminal complaint against my cousin. My cousin claims that he was only defending himself and that W was the one who attacked him. A staff member at the Hall of Justice told us that in order for my cousin to claim self-defense, he would first have to prove that he had been attacked by W and that such an attack was not justified. Allegedly, if my cousin does not prove this, he may be held responsible for the injuries W suffered. Is this true? Isn’t it W’s responsibility as the complainant to prove that my cousin committed the crime? Please advise.
rodel

Dear Rodel,
Self-defense is one of the justified reasons recognized in our law. If proven, the person accused of committing a crime will be released from criminal liability. Self-defense is specifically provided for in Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines; This article clearly states that:

“Art. 11. Reasonable grounds. — The following shall not give rise to any criminal liability:
“1. Anyone who acts to defend his person or rights if the following conditions occur:

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

“Third. The person defending himself did not have sufficient provocation. xxx” (Emphasis added)
As can be understood from the above provision, unlawful attack is an important element of self-defense. Although the burden of proving that the crime has been committed generally belongs to the prosecution, the burden shifts to the defendant if he claims to be exempt from criminal liability due to self-defense. In such a case, the defendant must prove all elements of self-defense in order to be free from criminal liability.

Regarding the element of unlawful attack, it must be clearly shown by the defendant that the victim actually attacked him and that there was no justification for such an attack. It was comprehensively explained by the Supreme Court through Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo in People of the Philippines v. Randy Gajila y Salazar (GR No. 227502, July 23, 2018):

“In criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution. However, when the defendant requests self-defense, the burden of proof passes from the prosecution to the defense and becomes the responsibility of the prosecution. The defendant must prove the existence of the following self-defense conditions with clear and convincing evidence: first, the victim’s unlawful attack; secondly, the reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel such aggression; and thirdly, the person defending himself did not have sufficient provocation.

“In such cases, the defendant must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. After all, by claiming self-defense, the defendant actually admits that he killed or injured the victim, and if he cannot prove the basic conditions of self-defense, he can no longer be acquitted of the charged crime.
“The most important condition of self-defense is an unlawful attack, which is a sine qua non for it to be accepted as a situation that justifies self-defense. In simpler words, the defendant must prove with clear and convincing evidence that the victim committed an unlawful attack against him. Otherwise, ‘ full or incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated because the other two essential elements (of it) would have no factual and legal basis without any unlawful attack to prevent or repel.’

“So we explained in People v. Nugas that:
“xxx The test for the existence of unlawful assault under the circumstances is whether the aggression of the victim actually endangers the life or personal safety of the person defending him; the danger must not be imaginary or a fictitious threat. Accordingly, the accused must have three elements of unlawful assault: (a) “There must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the assault or assault must be actual or at least imminent; and (c) the assault or Assault must be unlawful.”

Accordingly, if your cousin wishes to be exempt from criminal liability for the injuries suffered by W, he has the burden of proving that he was actually unjustly attacked by W, and that the means or method he used to respond to or suppress the aggression was valid. that it was reasonably necessary in the circumstances and that there was no sufficient provocation on his part.

We hope we were able to answer your questions. This advice is based solely on the facts you describe and our appreciation of them. Our view may change when other facts are changed or detailed.

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