Author Topic: Self Defense Laws in the RP  (Read 9094 times)

Offline wildbill

  • Sr Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 890
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2013, 09:28:36 PM »
Its still a Third world country.............

Offline Gray Wolf

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,068
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2013, 09:53:28 PM »
Also we still need legal clarification as to whether or not the self defense law does indeed apply equally to everyone or just Filipino citizens only. We must not forget that we here in the RP are living in a very proud, nationalistic country which tends to strongly protect its own. Even if the law says we can, in reality, can we ever really win here? Remember, courts will never allow a Filipino citizen to ever lose face to a foreigner, even if he\'s wrong. Food for thought. God Bless....


\"1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;...\"

Looks pretty self-explanatory to me.  Certain prerequisites must exist, of course.

Wayne posted: We will need a legal determination on this, does self apply to others in the household, if others are threatened and not you, i.e. someone in the household upsets somone elese and they come for them and the bad guy says he is not here for you or your asawa but somone else? How would the law apply...?


\"2.Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. \"


A fellow forum member provided me with the links to the laws quoted.  He said in his email to me...
 
\"I have been told by the circuit judge as well as the head of the CID in our area that if anyone breaks into our home I have the right to defend my family with any means available including my wives licensed gun.  I just hope that it never comes to that.\"


It appears we have the right to self defense and defense of our wives as well as our extended families.  The circumstances surrounding the self defense act will be strictly investigated, as can and should be expected.  In this light it appears to be similar to self defense laws in the US as well as many civilized countries.  The burden of proof falls on the person who takes this course of action.  This is understood and accepted.  The law does not give anyone the right to act without proof that the action taken is justified beyond any reasonable doubt.  In other words, if you should severely injure or kill someone who threatened you or your family, you had better have sufficient proof beyond any doubt that the action was necessary in order to prevent injury or death.
Louisville, KY USA

Offline Gray Wolf

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,068
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2013, 09:55:09 PM »
wolf

not \"beyond any doubt\" but \"beyond a *reasonable* doubt\".....huge difference...

but it doesn\'t even work that way in Canada....what you describe is called a proof of burden shift and is unconstitutional in Canada.  When the defence of self-defence is raised in canada all that the accused has to do to establish this defence is introduce evidence raising at least a reasonable doubt as to his guilt; the burden rests on the prosecution of disproving that defence..beyond a reasonable doubt.  prior to 1983 (the yr our canadian charter of rights and freedoms got penned) it was the way you describe...with the onus being on the person to do all the proving should he claim he hurt or killed someone in self defence.....but with the advent of our new constitution a ton of laws and procedures got struck down....and thankfully, that one got re-worked   

any country that places upon its citizens the duty to prove their own innocence in a criminal court of law instead of the state having to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the citizen is not a truly evolved country as it pertains to basic human rights such as life, liberty and security of the person. 

rick


Check my original post.  I did say "beyond any reasonable doubt". 

Bottom line: a foreigner has the right to defend his life and the life of his family.  In a situation where I confront a burglar in my house in the middle of the night, I won't be asking questions.  I'll take action and I'll defend myself to the full extent of my right to life.  But that's my choice.  YMMV

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/self-defense   

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act_3815_1930.html
Louisville, KY USA

Offline Gray Wolf

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,068
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2013, 09:56:21 PM »
Also we still need legal clarification as to whether or not the self defense law does indeed apply equally to everyone or just Filipino citizens only. We must not forget that we here in the RP are living in a very proud, nationalistic country which tends to strongly protect its own. Even if the law says we can, in reality, can we ever really win here? Remember, courts will never allow a Filipino citizen to ever lose face to a foreigner, even if he\'s wrong. Food for thought. God Bless....


\"1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;...\"

Looks pretty self-explanatory to me.  Certain prerequisites must exist, of course.

Wayne posted: We will need a legal determination on this, does self apply to others in the household, if others are threatened and not you, i.e. someone in the household upsets somone elese and they come for them and the bad guy says he is not here for you or your asawa but somone else? How would the law apply...?


\"2.Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. \"


A fellow forum member provided me with the links to the laws quoted.  He said in his email to me...
 
\"I have been told by the circuit judge as well as the head of the CID in our area that if anyone breaks into our home I have the right to defend my family with any means available including my wives licensed gun.  I just hope that it never comes to that.\"


It appears we have the right to self defense and defense of our wives as well as our extended families.  The circumstances surrounding the self defense act will be strictly investigated, as can and should be expected.  In this light it appears to be similar to self defense laws in the US as well as many civilized countries.  The burden of proof falls on the person who takes this course of action.  This is understood and accepted.  The law does not give anyone the right to act without proof that the action taken is justified beyond any reasonable doubt.  In other words, if you should severely injure or kill someone who threatened you or your family, you had better have sufficient proof beyond any doubt that the action was necessary in order to prevent injury or death.
Louisville, KY USA

Offline Gray Wolf

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,068
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #19 on: May 31, 2013, 09:58:29 PM »
For all those who wish to research existing laws pertaining to self defense, below you will find two references to Philippine law.  I suggest everyone make themselves aware of the following for their own self assurance.  I think this makes it clear you can defend yourself, even up to and including the use of deadly force, provided there is "sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence". 

   It's my hope we can have an intelligent debate without allowing emotions to overflow and cloud the issue.

Jack

______________________________

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/self-defense 

Self-Defense
(Philippine) criminal laws provide for instances where a person may defend himself and not be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Under Section 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following do not incur any criminal liability:

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.”

The justifying circumstance of self-defense “is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.” (People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense) claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.

It is basic that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We shall now discuss the following requisites in detail:

A. Unlawful Aggression:

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim, assuming that to be true, does not constitute unlawful aggression. Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other deadly weapon.

B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed:

Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. Although a knife is more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the accused.

C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself:

“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.

__________________________________________________

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act_3815_1930.html

CHAPTER TWO

Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability

Article 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.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actual exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. ...

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability...

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Louisville, KY USA

Offline Gray Wolf

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,068
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #20 on: May 31, 2013, 10:00:27 PM »
For all those who wish to research existing laws pertaining to self defense, below you will find two references to Philippine law.  I suggest everyone make themselves aware of the following for their own self assurance.  I think this makes it clear you can defend yourself, even up to and including the use of deadly force, provided there is "sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence". 

   It's my hope we can have an intelligent debate without allowing emotions to overflow and cloud the issue.

Jack

______________________________

http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/self-defense 

Self-Defense
(Philippine) criminal laws provide for instances where a person may defend himself and not be prosecuted for what would normally be a criminal action. Under Section 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the following do not incur any criminal liability:

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.”

The justifying circumstance of self-defense “is an affirmative allegation that must be proven with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it.” (People v. Nacuspag, 115 SCRA 172 [1982]) Where the accused has admitted that he is the author of the death of the deceased, it is incumbent upon the appellant, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove this justifying circumstance (self-defense) claimed by him, to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of the prosecution for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted the killing.

It is basic that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. We shall now discuss the following requisites in detail:

A. Unlawful Aggression:

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a person. Mere shouting, intimidating or threatening attitude of the victim, assuming that to be true, does not constitute unlawful aggression. Real aggression presupposes an act positively strong, showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor, which is not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, but a material attack. Examples are the pointing of a gun or the brandishing of a knife or other deadly weapon.

B. Reasonable necessity of the means employed:

Whether the means employed is reasonable or not, will depend upon the kind of weapon of the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances as well as those of the person attacked and the time and place of the attack. Although a knife is more dangerous than a club, its use is reasonable if there is no other available means of defense at the disposal of the accused.

C. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself:

“Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate to stir one to its commission. Imputing to a person the utterance of vulgar language is sufficient provocation. This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.

__________________________________________________

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act_3815_1930.html

CHAPTER TWO

Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability

Article 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.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actual exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. ...

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - The following are exempt from criminal liability...

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Louisville, KY USA

Offline iamjames

  • Sr Member +
  • Sr Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,086
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #21 on: May 26, 2015, 11:17:06 AM »
On a similar vein to this does anyone know if Tasers are legal here? I see them advertised on Lazada. 

Offline suzukig1

  • Sr Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 644
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #22 on: May 26, 2015, 12:03:06 PM »
On a similar vein to this does anyone know if Tasers are legal here? I see them advertised on Lazada.

Tasers are legal in the Phl. 

But is it legal for a foreigner to carry or own one?  I don't know.

It is not legal for a foreigner to own or carry a firearm in the Phl even though firearms are legal in the Phl.

Offline Steve & Myrlita

  • Administrator
  • Sr Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,165
  • 1st Time with all 5 Grandchildren Together 2016!
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #23 on: May 26, 2015, 07:37:42 PM »
On a similar vein to this does anyone know if Tasers are legal here? I see them advertised on Lazada.

Tasers are legal in the Phl. 

But is it legal for a foreigner to carry or own one?  I don't know.

It is not legal for a foreigner to own or carry a firearm in the Phl even though firearms are legal in the Phl.
To the best of my knowledge but I'm not sure, Foreigners are not allowed weapons of any kind.

Thank you...God Bless...
Bro Steve & Sis Myrlita
Bacolod City, PH

Offline Lee2

  • Administrator
  • Sr Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,236
Re: Self Defense Laws in the RP
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2015, 09:25:53 PM »
I have seen many different stun guns in the Philippines, I do not know if they are legal for a foreigner to use but I can tell you all that I had used some years ago with some pretty high voltage, and they do not usually work on people who are high on drugs, I had to find that out first hand a few times and the common denominator was always stoned on drugs. Since shabu seems to be common among criminals and even many others living in the Philippines, I would only warn people to not put too much faith in a stun gun doing the job but of course they might be better than nothing.

 For the home I would rather use a baseball bat as a line of defense and when out and about it might be better to make sure to do things which avoid the possibility of becoming a victim of crime. When with my wife, I do not ride jeepneys, and even at night I try to avoid them since taxis are not that expensive when thinking in dollars that I fortunately have in income, so I take a taxi whenever possible. I also do not walk down the streets late at night with my wife but I do by myself occasionally and I would do my best to try to deal with a situation should one occur, but if they are armed with a handgun, then I probably would quietly give them my money unless there was just one of them and the situation was just right, then I might take the weapon away from them and shove it in them where the sun does not shine.

Either way it might be a no win situation if one of us killed or hurt a local, even if we were correct in doing so, thus IMO better to avoid situations that might make it happen.
:) Happily married since 1994 & live part of the year in Cebu and the rest in S. Florida.

 


bisaya, cebuano, cebuano lessons, bisaya lessons
Romantic Tagalog