Law on Justifying Circumstances

Acts that are lawful, thus no criminal or civil liability exists because no crime has occurred.

State cannot protect everyone, so individuals can defend themselves. No one should give up rights passively.

Includes defense of person and rights protected by law; defense of property, including chastity.

Owners can use reasonable force to prevent/repel unlawful, physical invasion/usurpation of property. (e.g., New Civil Code Art. 429).

A physical act that poses immediate threat to life/limb, either actual or imminent.

A strong, physical action showing the aggressor's intent to harm, not just threats.

An impending attack about to happen, not just threats or imagined attacks.

If a fight is planned, neither party can claim self-defense; both are aggressors. Exception: if attacked in violation of agreement.

Unlawful aggression must exist when the defense is made. If aggressor stops, no more self-defense.

If a time lapse occurs between attack and counter-attack, it's likely revenge, not self-defense.

A light push isn't unlawful aggression (e.g., a slap), but a slap is, as it threatens dignity.

A police officer exceeding authority may become an unlawful aggressor, justifying self-defense.

Provocation must be proportionate to the damage caused and enough to cause the act.

Complete self-defense is allowed only in an attempted rape, or clear imminent threat of rape.

To justify self-defense of property, there must also be an attack on the owner or caretaker.

Physical assault can be justified by libel when a person's reputation is attacked and physical response is necessary during the libel.

The accused must prove self-defense with strong, clear evidence.

The person defending must convincingly believe there's an unlawful attack.

The means to defend must be justified and proportionate to the attack.

If the person attacked provoked the situation, the defender must not have played any part in it.

Spouse, ascendants, descendants, and specific relatives within a certain degree of consanguinity and affinity are eligible.

The concept of defending a non-relative

Circumstances that lessen or remove criminal responsibility because the act was done in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, and the offense was a necessary consequence.

A security guard does not automatically have the right to use deadly force in response to a theft (e.g., firing at a thief).

A defense where a subordinate is exempted from criminal liability if they obeyed a legal order using lawful means.

A subordinate's good faith belief that the order was legal is crucial. Subordinates, not superiors, can use this defense.

An order is "patently illegal" if it's obviously unlawful; obeying such an order is no defense.

Reasons why a person is not held criminally responsible for an act. Includes lack of intent, free will, or negligence.

A person who is insane or an imbecile is exempt from criminal liability, unless they act during a lucid interval.

The defendant has the responsibility to prove exempting or justifying circumstances to the court's satisfaction.

Legal ages determining the level of responsibility for criminal acts.

A person under 9 years old is not held responsible for crimes.

Minors between 9 and 15 years must have discernment to be held accountable; otherwise, they are not.

Reduced criminal liability, typically for those over 15 or under 18.

Criminal liability for acts committed by those 18 years old and up to 70 years old.

A minor's understanding of the consequences of their actions (ages 9-15).

A person between 9 and 15, without the "discernment," can be exempt from criminal liability.

In cases of minors (9-15), the court assumes they do not have the required comprehension.

The prosecution must demonstrate a minor (9-15) acted with discernment.

Crime commission's manner (e.g, night, hiding loot), post-crime actions (pride/satisfaction) or physical observations may show discernment.

A mitigating circumstance that reduces criminal responsibility when an offender acts impulsively due to intense emotion or confusion.

Passion and obfuscation is incompatible with treachery; treachery requires premeditation or planning, whereas passion/obfuscation is impulsive.

A mitigating circumstance where the offender willingly surrenders to the authorities after committing a crime.

The offender must not be under arrest, voluntarily surrender to a person in authority, and the surrender must be spontaneous.

Voluntary surrender is not a mitigating factor if a warrant has already been issued and served.

A mitigating circumstance where a third party's action coerced the offender into committing a crime, requiring physical force.

A mitigating circumstance in which the offender's action directly results from an offense by the offended party, causing a reaction, without an immediate response required.

A legal principle stating a minor cannot be held accountable for their actions because they don't understand the consequences.

A statement in legal documents specifying the accused's purpose to kill, implying awareness of the expected outcome.

A legal claim that an injury occurred without intent or negligence (i.e., caused by pure accident) while engaging in lawful activities.

Acting with caution and prudence, demonstrating a reasonable standard of care, avoiding avoidable risks.

An action permitted by the law—not an act that is illegal or criminal.

Discharging a firearm in a crowded area is not a lawful act if it leads to injury.

An injury caused by an unexpected event, not intended to harm.

Using necessary force to protect oneself, however, if harm occurs accidentally, it may still be deemed lawful.

While hunting, if an accident occurs, demonstrating due care and no intent to harm could mean the act is lawful.