This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative.[21] Here, we agree with the CA that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of De Leon. Randolf himself testified that he hit De Leon because he thought that De Leon was with the man who punched him and not because he was threatened by De Leon's gun, to wit: Atty. Villalon: Why did you hit him, Mr. Witness? Witness: Because I thought he was with the guy who punched me, sir. x x x x Atty. Villalon: So what did you think when you saw Mr. Orlando de Leon holding his gun and cursing your cousin and telling him not to come near him, what did you think? Witness: Nothing, sir, I just thought of hitting him, sir. Atty. Villalon: Why? Witness: Because I thought that he was the one who ordered that I would be hit, sir.[22] As to the award of damages, the CA correctly awarded P75,000 as civil indemnity, P50,000 as moral damages, P30,000 as exemplary damages and P25,000 as temperate damages. The award of 6% interest per annum on the monetary awards from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid is also correct.[23] | |||||
|
2015-02-25 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the records, the Court is satisfied that the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly pronounced that the above-mentioned requirements were not present in this case. It is significant to point out that upon invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, Casas assumed the burden of proving the justification of his act with clear and convincing evidence. This is because his having admitted the killing required him to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, which, even if it were weak, could not be disbelieved in view of his admission.[26] | |||||
|
2014-10-01 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Since the accused alleges self-defense, he carries the burden of evidence to prove that he satisfied the elements required by law;[30] he who alleges must prove. By admitting the commission of the act charged and pleading avoidance based on the law, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence to prove that the facts that the legal avoidance requires are present; the weakness of the prosecution's evidence is immaterial after he admitted the commission of the act charged.[31] | |||||