This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Where an accused charged with the killing of a person admits having caused that death but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the positiveness of that justifying circumstance; otherwise, having admitted the killing, conviction is inescapable.[11] When appellant invoked self-defense he, in effect, assumed the onus probandi to substantiate the same. It became his inescapable burden to prove clearly and convincingly the elements of self-defense. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the record, we find no cogent reason to overturn the assailed decision of the trial court. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed upon appellant to prove clearly and convincingly the elements thereof: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[18] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[19] If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[20] In this case, appellant's testimony miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. He claims that it was the victim who, without provocation on his part, suddenly attacked him. To defend himself, he was constrained to pull out the knife from his waist and stab the victim on the chest. | |||||