This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The crime for which private respondent was convicted by the RTC was committed on October 5, 1990. The applicable law at the time was PD 1866,[31] which prescribed the death penalty if homicide or murder was committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. The death penalty was, however, suspended by the 1987 Constitution.[32] Thus, the penalty next lower in degree -- reclusión perpetua[33] -- was imposed by this Court in GR No. 114185, when it affirmed private respondent's conviction for violation of Section 1 of PD 1866.[34] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "The Provincial Prosecutor for Isabela is hereby directed to institute against the accused a criminal action for the crime of murder, if none has yet been made; x x x."[29] Aside from being unrebutted by the accused, the above-quoted ruling is reinforced by the clear and convincing proof adduced by the prosecution through Eyewitnesses Pacita Recto and Clarita Lim, who both affirmed that private respondent had killed Esteban "Jojo" Lim Jr. Clearly then, the evidence of private respondent's guilt was strong; hence, bail should not have been allowed. | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Where the accused invokes self-defense, as Calabroso does, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself.[9] There are three (3) requisites to prove the claim of self-defense under Art. 11, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, namely, (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the same manner, an accused who invokes defense of a stranger pursuant to Art. 11, par. 3, of the same Code, has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the exculpatory cause that would save him from conviction.[10] The first two (2) requisites of self-defense should also be present in defense of a stranger. A third requisite is that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.[11] | |||||