This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly rejected the appellants' self-defense theory. When an accused invokes self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. The burden of proof is thus shifted on him to prove all the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.[20] | |||||
|
2002-03-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As in all criminal prosecutions where conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely on the victim's positive identification of the culprits, the arguments presented by accused-appellants in their individual appeal briefs go into the credibility of the complaining witness.[19] As we have held in a legion of cases, the assessment by the trial court of the witness' credibility is accorded the highest degree of respect from the appellate courts which do not deal with live witnesses but rely solely on the cold pages of a written record.[20] We do not have the least doubt that the court a quo in the instant case prudently fulfilled its obligation as a factual assessor and legal adjudicator. | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| This Court however finds that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Where the lone eyewitness Romeo Barsaga did not see how the assault on the victim began, the trial court cannot conclude that treachery attended the commission of the crime.[13] Any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused. However, despite the absence of treachery, the factual circumstances of the crime show that the killing of the victim was qualified by abuse of superior strength, which is expressly alleged in the Information. Thus, the two (2) accused-appellants did not only enjoy superiority in number but they also used bolos while their victim was unarmed.[14] There was physical disparity between the protagonists and abuse of superior strength was obvious. The force used by the aggressors was out of proportion to the means of defense available to the victim.[15] | |||||