I paused at 8:34, and here's my answer, Atty. No. Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the elements of self-defense is unlawful aggression. Here, Police officer John's act of firing at Randy, who just committed a crime, in order to stop him is lawful aggression. Absent this element, it will not constitute self-defense. will wait for your feedback Atty.
Hi Atty. just like to call your attention at 12:07 of your video you missed typing the word " NO" in there can be __ self-defense, complete or incomplete without presence of unlawful aggression. Thank you for inspiring me :)
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is not tenable. Under the Revised Penal Code, self-defense can be claimed as justifiable circumstances if the following elements are present: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable means to prevent and protect, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the side of the depending himself. Here, Police Officer acted on his duties to fire Randy on his attempt to escape after killing Willy. Since the first element, which the sine qua non condition, is absent, Randy, therefore, cannot claim self-defense.
No, the contention of the accused is not tenable. Under the law, self defense can be validly claim provided that the three requisite are present, the unlawful aggression, lack of sufficient provocation on the person defending it, and necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it. In the case given, John is a police officer in which he is a person charged of the law enforcement thus required to stop or arrest randy who had just killed randy. Randy cannot validly claim self defense. Thanks Atty.
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense in not tenable because the Unlawful Aggression is lacking. Based on the decided case, unlawful aggression is the most important element of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. Here, Randy’s claim of self-defense in not tenable because the aggression of PO John against Randy is lawful. PO John is effecting a valid warrantless arrest to Randy who had just committed a felony. Thus, it is correct that Randy be convicted for frustrated homicide.
Criminology lng po ako atty peru parang gusto ko din na mag study ng law pag napapanood ko kayu😊 bali sasagot ako in favor to randy.😊 Yes. Randy's claim of self defense is tenable. Because under the Revised penal code of the Philippines, self defense can be claimed when the following circumstances are present: 1 Unlawful Aggression. 2 reasonable means employed to repel and prevent it. 3 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person depending himself. In this problem we all only know the willy was killed by randy in john's presence, we did not know what are the reasons behind the incident, or we din not know who may be the aggressor between willy and randy. In the second issue randy was just only running away, so the police officer can not use firearms, because there is no danger in the life of the police officer when someone is running away from him and we can not find in this problem that john show to randy that he is a police officer. For such reasons that randy did not know that john is a police officer and firing a firearms towards him and then randy has a rigth to depend himself, so Randy's claim of self defense is tenable.😊
sir Lex. i have a suggestion. what if in a portion of your new videos you would be the professor you are in the boot camp. it would be interesting to see what it's like :)
No. Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. The person who initiates the aggression cannot claim self-defense unless the initial aggression has ceased and the other party has become the aggressor. In this case, Randy's initial aggression by killing Willy did not cease, and John's actions were lawful and in response to Randy's continuing aggression. Therefore, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable.
No, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code lays down the requisites to prove the claim of self-defense namely: 1) unlawful aggression; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employ to prevent harm or repeal it; 3) There is no sufficient provocation from the person defending himself. In this case, the most important requisite is not met. There is no unlawful aggression as John a police officer acted in his official duty in hot pursuit after the crime has been committed in his presence. Thus, in the absence of unlawful aggression, Randy's claim will not prosper.
No. Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. According to Art. 11 of RPC, self-defense must derive from an unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In this case, Randy had killed Willy's in the presence of a police officer, which warrants a sufficient provocation from Randy to be chased by John, who has the duty to protect the people.
No, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. Under the criminal law, self-defense can only be claim if the requisite of unlawful aggression from the victim is present. In this case, there is no unlawful aggression from the police officer. Hence, Randy's claim is not tenable.
No. Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable. To invoke such, the following elements must concur: a. Unlawful Aggression b. Reasonable necessity to repel an attack, and c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of person defending himself. In the case at bar, it is true that randy has means to repel john’s attack. However, the elements of unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation are deemed absent. The firing of John is an attempt to stop randy, thus negating the unlawful aggression. For lack of sufficient provocation, it is very clear that the reason John chased randy is to arrest the latter for committing a crime in flagrante. In addition, Randy is not in duty to defend his life instead has a duty to answer the crime he committed against willy. Hence, Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable given that two of the elements to qualify for the same are absent. D po ako sure 😅
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable. In self-defense, there must be unlawful aggression by the accused over the life and limbs of the victim. Here, John is merely performing his duty when he fired at Randy having witnessed the latter’s killing of Willy. Hence, Randy cannot claim self-defense since John’s firing is lawful, not unlawful aggression.
Imprecise, kapatid. You are correct but you failed to argue why the claim is untenable. I hope you build on this performance. See you again in the next lessons.
No. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, in order to invoke self-defense the following requisites must concur, Unlawful aggression,Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it, and lastly, Lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending himself. In this case, Randy is the unlawful aggressor. Therefore, Randy's claim is NOT tenable.
This is a self-levitating answer. You failed to tender an argument. In every instance of self-defense, the accused is an aggressor, meaning he or she has caused harm or injury and it is from that injury that he or she seeks to be exempt from criminal liability. Here, you were unable to demonstrate WHY Randy is not entitled to self-defense. You simply stated that he is an aggressor. Thank you for sharing, kapatid. I hope you build on this in the next lessons.
No, the claim of self-defense by Randy is not tenable because of the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Police officer John. For self-defense to be raised as a defense, there must exist a previous unlawful aggression on the part of the person attacked. In this case, the act of Police officer John in firing his gun in the attempt to stop Willy from escaping is not unlawful. It was made in the performance of a lawful duty as a peace officer. Therefore, Randy's act of firing back cannot be justified through self-defense.
![[LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINES] Life and Channel Updates for 2023 | LAW SCHOOL VLOG](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JBBVlxaKHD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINES] Life and Channel Updates for 2023 | LAW SCHOOL VLOG](/img/tr.png)
![[LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINES] 30 Things I Wish I Knew as a Law School Freshman](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/__BYdNrYwJo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINES] How to Spot Issues in Law School Problems, Bar Exams and Recitations](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ckPnDxHook/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LAW SCHOOL PHILIPPINES] How to Answer Law School+Bar Problems 13 | SUGGESTED ANSWERS BAR EXAM 2022](/img/1.gif)
I paused at 8:34, and here's my answer, Atty.
No. Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the elements of self-defense is unlawful aggression.
Here, Police officer John's act of firing at Randy, who just committed a crime, in order to stop him is lawful aggression.
Absent this element, it will not constitute self-defense.
will wait for your feedback Atty.
Hi Atty. just like to call your attention at 12:07 of your video you missed typing the word " NO" in there can be __ self-defense, complete or incomplete without presence of unlawful aggression. Thank you for inspiring me :)
You are right and our intern is wrong. Thank you for pointing this out. See you again in the next lessons.
Thank you for always guiding us to the right path atty. may you inspire more law students, like me. take care always and stay healthy.
Thank you so much for clarifying how to answer per paragraph. :D
We are still waiting and hoping for your new videos. More blessing comes to you sir.
Planning to enter law school hope marami pa kyu magawang video like this for reference.and knoledge.
I hope you join The LXM Boot Camp Batch 09. 😊❤️🙏🏻
how to join sir? Im currently on my Sharia Law review and planning to enter law school after.@@LexInMotion
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is not tenable. Under the Revised Penal Code, self-defense can be claimed as justifiable circumstances if the following elements are present: (1) unlawful aggression, (2) reasonable means to prevent and protect, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the side of the depending himself. Here, Police Officer acted on his duties to fire Randy on his attempt to escape after killing Willy. Since the first element, which the sine qua non condition, is absent, Randy, therefore, cannot claim self-defense.
No, the contention of the accused is not tenable.
Under the law, self defense can be validly claim provided that the three requisite are present, the unlawful aggression, lack of sufficient provocation on the person defending it, and necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it. In the case given, John is a police officer in which he is a person charged of the law enforcement thus required to stop or arrest randy who had just killed randy. Randy cannot validly claim self defense.
Thanks Atty.
Hi Atty! Thyank you po! God bless po
Where to buy your book sir?
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense in not tenable because the Unlawful Aggression is lacking.
Based on the decided case, unlawful aggression is the most important element of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself.
Here, Randy’s claim of self-defense in not tenable because the aggression of PO John against Randy is lawful. PO John is effecting a valid warrantless arrest to Randy who had just committed a felony.
Thus, it is correct that Randy be convicted for frustrated homicide.
interesting video idea! would love to see many more like this
Criminology lng po ako atty peru parang gusto ko din na mag study ng law pag napapanood ko kayu😊 bali sasagot ako in favor to randy.😊
Yes. Randy's claim of self defense is tenable.
Because under the Revised penal code of the Philippines, self defense can be claimed when the following circumstances are present: 1 Unlawful Aggression. 2 reasonable means employed to repel and prevent it. 3 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person depending himself.
In this problem we all only know the willy was killed by randy in john's presence, we did not know what are the reasons behind the incident, or we din not know who may be the aggressor between willy and randy. In the second issue randy was just only running away, so the police officer can not use firearms, because there is no danger in the life of the police officer when someone is running away from him and we can not find in this problem that john show to randy that he is a police officer.
For such reasons that randy did not know that john is a police officer and firing a firearms towards him and then randy has a rigth to depend himself, so Randy's claim of self defense is tenable.😊
Hello po Atty, how can I purchase po the Otso?
I like to avail OTSO 101 practice problems?
sir Lex. i have a suggestion. what if in a portion of your new videos you would be the professor you are in the boot camp. it would be interesting to see what it's like :)
sana sa 1st semester ito ni upload
No. Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable.
The person who initiates the aggression cannot claim self-defense unless the initial aggression has ceased and the other party has become the aggressor.
In this case, Randy's initial aggression by killing Willy did not cease, and John's actions were lawful and in response to Randy's continuing aggression.
Therefore, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable.
What if your position is to defend Randy..Talo na po ba?Criminal law..isa sa pinaka masakit sa bangs😂
No, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code lays down the requisites to prove the claim of self-defense namely: 1) unlawful aggression; 2) reasonable necessity of the means employ to prevent harm or repeal it; 3) There is no sufficient provocation from the person defending himself.
In this case, the most important requisite is not met. There is no unlawful aggression as John a police officer acted in his official duty in hot pursuit after the crime has been committed in his presence.
Thus, in the absence of unlawful aggression, Randy's claim will not prosper.
No. Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable. According to Art. 11 of RPC, self-defense must derive from an unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In this case, Randy had killed Willy's in the presence of a police officer, which warrants a sufficient provocation from Randy to be chased by John, who has the duty to protect the people.
Addition 😂😂:
Since John is a police officer, the unlawful aggression that Randy claims is a lawful act against his crime.
No, Randy's claim of self-defense is not tenable.
Under the criminal law, self-defense can only be claim if the requisite of unlawful aggression from the victim is present.
In this case, there is no unlawful aggression from the police officer.
Hence, Randy's claim is not tenable.
Under RPC nalang safest answer.
No. Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable. To invoke such, the following elements must concur: a. Unlawful Aggression b. Reasonable necessity to repel an attack, and c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of person defending himself.
In the case at bar, it is true that randy has means to repel john’s attack. However, the elements of unlawful aggression and lack of sufficient provocation are deemed absent. The firing of John is an attempt to stop randy, thus negating the unlawful aggression.
For lack of sufficient provocation, it is very clear that the reason John chased randy is to arrest the latter for committing a crime in flagrante. In addition, Randy is not in duty to defend his life instead has a duty to answer the crime he committed against willy.
Hence, Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable given that two of the elements to qualify for the same are absent.
D po ako sure 😅
Good eve atty kailan po unit and booth camp po
Thank you for your interest, kapatid. Batch 09 is happening next month:
forms.gle/2CnfCS5fQiLAXzaZ8
No, Randy’s claim of self-defense is untenable.
In self-defense, there must be unlawful aggression by the accused over the life and limbs of the victim. Here, John is merely performing his duty when he fired at Randy having witnessed the latter’s killing of Willy. Hence, Randy cannot claim self-defense since John’s firing is lawful, not unlawful aggression.
Imprecise, kapatid. You are correct but you failed to argue why the claim is untenable. I hope you build on this performance. See you again in the next lessons.
No. Randy could not invoke a self defense as there is no unlawful aggression as one of the requisites in self defense.
there can be NO self-defense
No. Under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, in order to invoke self-defense the following requisites must concur, Unlawful aggression,Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it, and lastly, Lack of sufficient provocation from the person defending himself.
In this case, Randy is the unlawful aggressor. Therefore, Randy's claim is NOT tenable.
interesting!
This is a self-levitating answer. You failed to tender an argument. In every instance of self-defense, the accused is an aggressor, meaning he or she has caused harm or injury and it is from that injury that he or she seeks to be exempt from criminal liability.
Here, you were unable to demonstrate WHY Randy is not entitled to self-defense. You simply stated that he is an aggressor. Thank you for sharing, kapatid. I hope you build on this in the next lessons.
@@LexInMotion Thank you Atty! Duly noted, will be back stronger.
No, the claim of self-defense by Randy is not tenable because of the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Police officer John.
For self-defense to be raised as a defense, there must exist a previous unlawful aggression on the part of the person attacked.
In this case, the act of Police officer John in firing his gun in the attempt to stop Willy from escaping is not unlawful. It was made in the performance of a lawful duty as a peace officer. Therefore, Randy's act of firing back cannot be justified through self-defense.