This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Considering that self-defense totally exonerates the accused from any criminal liability, it is well settled that when he invokes the same, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself.[12] The burden of proving that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor shifts upon him.[13] As such, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution for, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing.[14] | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a hornbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the appellant to prove the elements of that claim,[14] i.e., (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[15] But absent the essential element of unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense.[16] | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is incredible for accused to remember all the small details involving the complainant from the time she was born up to the years she was studying, including her alleged sickness and confinement in the hospital, as well as other matters relating to accused['s] closeness with complainant and collateral relatives of complainant, from her maternal and paternal side: all these things, including the important fact, accused clearly remembered he was arrested by a policeman and put inside the jail, on account of the complaint of complainant and her mother of the offense charged yet claimed, he cannot remember what happened to complainant on the very incident of rape testified to by complainant.[43] Verily, appellant's seeming selective amnesia makes his denial suspect. During the proceedings, he could remember distant and specific details about AAA's history and family yet when the matter referred to the crux of his incarceration, he could not recall a thing. All told, the series of elastic representations cast serious pitfalls on appellant's credibility, as an experience of this nature will, for certain, linger in one's mind unlike the unusual amnesia displayed by appellant before the trial court. The point is, appellant has not done much to turn the tide, so to speak, to his side.[44] | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Doctrinally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and weight. It is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses and related questions of fact because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Thus, it has become a well-settled rule that where the issue touches on the credibility of witnesses or factual findings, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, unless some facts or circumstances that may affect the result of the case have been overlooked.[28] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Doctrinally, findings of fact of trial courts are accorded the highest respect and weight. It is the peculiar province of the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses and related questions of fact because of its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of witnesses while testifying. Thus, it has become a well-settled rule that where the issue touches on the credibility of witnesses or factual findings, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, unless some facts or circumstances that may affect the result of the case have been overlooked.[31] | |||||
|
2000-10-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Having invoked the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative, accused-appellant Joaquin Barrameda is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish and prove the elements to set up the defense,[7] namely, (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and, (c) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one defending himself had no part therein.[8] In the case at bar, accused-appellant Joaquin Barrameda failed to present sufficient proof of the existence of a positively strong act of real aggression on the part of the deceased. Except for his self-serving and uncorroborated allegations, there is nothing on record that would justify his killing of Ruperto. He even failed to present his wife to corroborate his claim of sexual assault upon her by the deceased. Hence, the plea of defense of a relative cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful in itself.[9] The records show the presence of eight (8) stab, hack and incised wounds on the head and body of the deceased. If accused-appellant Barrameda stabbed the deceased merely to defend his wife, it certainly defies reason why he had to inflict several stab and hack wounds on the victim. The rule is settled that the nature and extent of the wounds inflicted on the victim negate an accused's defense of oneself or of a relative or a stranger.[10] | |||||