Prepared as a practical, doctrine-focused explainer for students, bar reviewees, and practitioners. Statutory anchors are Articles 11–12 of the RPC, read together with related provisions and special laws.

I. Orientation: Why these defenses matter

Criminal liability in Philippine law requires (1) an act or omission (actus reus), (2) dolo or culpa (mens rea or negligence), and (3) absence of defenses. Justifying, exempting, and absolutory causes are different legal routes to the same destination: no criminal liability (and sometimes no civil liability). Knowing which box a situation falls into determines the elements to prove, who bears the burden, and what civil effects remain.

Justifying circumstances (Art. 11): The act is lawful; no crime is committed.
Exempting circumstances (Art. 12): The act is unlawful, but the actor is not criminally liable due to absence of voluntariness or free will.
Absolutory causes: The act is a crime, but the law forgives it (public policy/relationship reasons) or bars punishment in that instance.

II. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11)

When a justification applies, the law treats the act as non-criminal. Civil liability generally does not arise, subject to specific carve-outs below.

A. Self-Defense; Defense of Relative; Defense of Stranger

Common requisites (the three-part test):

Unlawful aggression against the defender/relative/stranger;
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
Lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending (tailored to the variant).

Notes and doctrine

Unlawful aggression is indispensable. Without it, the claim fails. Mere threats or a concluded past aggression won’t do. Imminence and reality matter.
Reasonable necessity is assessed from the defender’s standpoint at the time—no mathematical proportionality, but the means must plausibly neutralize the aggression.
Burden of proof shifts: once the accused admits the act (e.g., the killing) but pleads self-defense, the accused carries the burden of evidence to prove the requisites by credible and clear proof. The prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains as to the offense charged, but the defense must stand on its own proof.
Defense of relative covers spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate/natural/adopted siblings, and relatives by affinity in the same degrees—plus requirements on lack of participation/provocation of the person defended.
Defense of stranger is allowed if the defender has no part in the provocation and the other requisites concur.
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS): By statute (R.A. 9262), BWS can support self-defense even if the aggression is not contemporaneous in the classic sense, provided expert proof and statutory requisites are satisfied.

Civil effects

Generally none, except in avoidance of greater evil (below) and certain distributive rules on who ultimately shoulders loss.

B. Avoidance of a Greater Evil or Injury (State of Necessity)

Requisites

Evil/injury threatened is greater than that caused to avoid it;
No other practicable and less harmful means; and
The actor did not provoke the state of necessity.

Civil effect: Persons who benefited are civilly liable in proportion to their share of the benefit (the harm is lawfully caused but someone must bear the loss).

C. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right/Office

Requisites

The act is done in fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right/office; and
Injury is a necessary consequence thereof.

Key caution: If the officer misapprehends facts without due care (e.g., uses unnecessary or excessive force), justification may fail; the case can devolve to negligence or full liability depending on proof.

D. Obedience to a Lawful Order of a Superior

Requisites

Order by a superior;
Order is for a lawful purpose; and
Lawful means are used.

If the order is manifestly unlawful, obedience does not justify. The subordinate must refuse.

III. Exempting Circumstances (Article 12)

The act remains unlawful, but the offender is not criminally liable because voluntariness or free agency is absent or fatally impaired. Civil liability may still attach (Arts. 101–103 RPC; Civil Code).

A. Insanity or Imbecility

Test: At the time of the act, the offender could not discern right from wrong or act in accordance with that discernment; lucid intervals negate the defense.
Burden: The defense must present competent proof (often expert testimony, medical history, behavior before/after the act).

Civil effect: The insane/imbecile (through guardians/estate) may bear civil liability; those with legal authority over them may bear subsidiary liability if negligence in supervision is shown.

B. Minority (superseded in part by special law)

RPC text: Under 9, or over 9 and under 15 without discernment (historical).
Current regime (R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630):
- 15 years old and below: Not criminally liable. Subject to intervention programs.
- Above 15 but below 18: Exempt unless shown to have acted with discernment; if with discernment, subject to diversion/rehabilitative processes and appropriate dispositions under the juvenile justice system. Even if prosecuted, special privileged mitigation and protective measures apply.

C. Accident

The harmful result was produced by mere accident while performing a lawful act with due care, without fault or intention.

D. Irresistible Force

An external force compelling the actor to commit the crime, leaving no real volition.

E. Uncontrollable Fear (of an equal or greater injury)

Coercion through grave, imminent, and real threat leaving no reasonable escape; fear must be well-founded and proportionate.

F. Lawful or Insuperable Cause

Failure to perform an act required by law due to lawful or insuperable cause (e.g., force majeure, legal impossibility).

IV. Absolutory Causes (Selected and Significant)

Absolutory causes are policy-based exculpations: the act is a crime, but no penalty is imposed due to special reasons. Unlike justifications, the act remains wrongful, and unlike exemptions, the actor is fully capable, yet the law chooses to forgive.

A. Article 332 (Relationship in Property Crimes)

No criminal liability for theft, swindling (estafa), and malicious mischief when committed only against: spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives by affinity in the same line, and widowed spouse with respect to property of the deceased before it has passed into the hands of a third person, and siblings (whether legitimate, natural, or adopted) living together (classic formulations).
Civil liability subsists.
Limits: Applies only to the enumerated crimes and only for the enumerated relationships.

B. Article 20 (Exemption of Certain Accessories)

Accessories who are spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate/natural/adopted siblings, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees are exempt from criminal liability as accessories, except those who profited themselves or assisted the principal to profit by the effects of the crime.

C. Instigation (vs. Entrapment)

Instigation—law enforcers or their agents induce the accused to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed—absolves (no liability).
Entrapment—officers merely provide opportunity to one already predisposed—does not absolve.

D. Spontaneous Desistance

Before the crime is consummated, the offender voluntarily desists. No liability for the intended crime; however, liability remains for independent felonies already consummated (e.g., physical injuries inflicted before stopping).

E. Special marriage-or consent-based bars (historical notes)

Various old RPC provisions conditioned prosecution or extinguishment on complaint, pardon, or marriage (e.g., seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness). Many have been amended or repealed by later laws (e.g., R.A. 8353 reclassifying rape as a crime against persons and removing marriage as a defense). Always check the current special law rather than relying on pre-amendment RPC text.

F. Article 247 (Exceptional Circumstances)

Death or serious injuries inflicted upon a spouse and paramour caught in the act of sexual intercourse (or in the act immediately thereafter) results in destierro (not full exoneration). Often discussed with justifications, but strictly neither justifying nor exempting; it is a special privileged penalty recognizing extreme provocation. Strict elements and immediacy apply.

V. Practical Burdens, Evidence, and Litigation Notes

Admission + Affirmative Defense
- In self-defense, defense of relative/stranger, or fulfillment of duty, the accused typically admits the act and then proves the defense. Expect a shift in the burden of evidence to the accused to establish the requisites with credible, positive proof.
Quality of Proof
- Unlawful aggression is the litmus test in self-defense. Look for weapon presence, trajectory, defensive wounds, spatial layout, CCTV, immediate statements, and consistency with physical evidence.
- Accident demands due care; negligence erases the defense and may even establish culpa.
- Insanity requires contemporaneity (at the time of the act) and typically expert testimony, though lay observations can corroborate.
Civil Liability Mapping
- Justified acts: generally no civil liability, except state of necessity (beneficiaries pay in proportion).
- Exempted actors: civil liability remains; guardians or persons in authority over the exempted may have subsidiary liability (Arts. 101–103).
- Absolutory causes: check the specific rule (e.g., Art. 332 maintains civil liability).
Interplay with Special Laws
- Juveniles: R.A. 9344/10630 govern procedure, diversion, and protective measures; these override the old age thresholds in the RPC.
- R.A. 9262 (BWS): may justify otherwise criminal acts under a specialized self-defense framework.
- PD 1829 (Obstruction of Justice): may preclude reliance on accessory exemptions if conduct squares with obstruction elements; analyze charges independently.
Plea-Crafting and Charge Theory
- Consider negating elements (e.g., no unlawful aggression) vs. affirmative defenses.
- For instigation, litigate predisposition and police inducement; preserve objections and seek pre-trial dismissal where the record supports it.

VI. Comparative Table (at a glance)

Feature	Justifying	Exempting	Absolutory Cause
Nature of the act	Lawful	Unlawful	Unlawful
Actor’s capacity	With capacity	Lacking volition/capacity	With capacity
Criminal liability	None (no crime)	None (crime exists but no liability)	None (forgiven by policy)
Civil liability	None, except state of necessity allocation	Generally remains	Depends (e.g., remains under Art. 332)
Typical examples	Self-defense; state necessity; fulfillment of duty; lawful order	Insanity; minority (per JJWA); accident; irresistible force; uncontrollable fear; insuperable cause	Art. 332; Art. 20 (accessory relatives); instigation; spontaneous desistance; Art. 247 (special penalty)

VII. Checklist Summaries

Self-Defense/Defense of Relative/Stranger

Unlawful aggression (real, imminent, or actual)
Reasonable necessity of means
No sufficient provocation by defender (and for relatives/strangers, extra conditions)
Own proof—not mere reliance on prosecution’s weakness

Accident

Lawful act + due care + no fault/intention + accidental result

Irresistible Force / Uncontrollable Fear

External compulsion (force) or grave, imminent threat (fear)
No reasonable escape; threat equal/greater than the crime risked

Insanity

Incapacity at the time of the act; lucid interval defeats it
Competent medical/behavioral evidence

Art. 332

Crime is theft/estafa/malicious mischief
Parties have qualifying relationship
Only those crimes; civil liability remains

VIII. Common Pitfalls

Treating past aggression as “unlawful aggression” (it must be ongoing or imminent).
Assuming proportionality requires weapon-to-weapon symmetry (it does not, but reasonableness still governs).
Invoking obedience to orders where the order is manifestly unlawful.
Forgetting civil liability in exempting and absolutory scenarios.
Relying on repealed/historic marriage-or-pardon clauses—verify current special laws.

IX. Quick Application Hypos

Knife threat; defender shoots once: If the attack is imminent (distance/angle matter) and retreat is unsafe, self-defense may lie; check reasonableness of a firearm response given the dynamics.
Child aged 14 shoplifts: Under R.A. 9344, exempt unless with discernment; even then, prioritize diversion. If the property owner is the child’s ascendant, Art. 332 bars criminal liability for theft; civil liability remains.
Police “buys” drugs from first-time seller after goading: If officers induced a non-predisposed person, instigation bars liability; if the seller was ready and willing and officers merely facilitated, that’s entrapment (no bar).

X. Bottom Line

Justifying = lawful act; Exempting = no free will; Absolutory = forgiven by policy.
Master the elements, burdens, and civil spillovers.
Always map against special laws (juveniles, VAWC/BWS, obstruction) that modify or overlay RPC defenses.

This article is educational and general in nature. For concrete cases, evaluate the full factual record and the most recent statutes and jurisprudence.