Getting Prepared For The Philippines > Laws, Regulations, Taxes as Applied to Foreigners
Self Defense Laws in the RP
Gray Wolf:
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.
iamjames:
On a similar vein to this does anyone know if Tasers are legal here? I see them advertised on Lazada.
suzukig1:
--- Quote from: iamjames 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Steve & Myrlita:
--- Quote from: suzukig1 on May 26, 2015, 12:03:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: iamjames 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
To the best of my knowledge but I'm not sure, Foreigners are not allowed weapons of any kind.
Lee2:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version