This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2001-12-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to the penalty to be imposed on appellant, however, the appropriate penalty is not life imprisonment as imposed by the trial judge but reclusion perpetua as provided for in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity should be awarded to the victim's heirs without need of further proof other than the death of the victim.[42] In addition, his heirs are also entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000 in accordance with recent rulings.[43] | |||||
|
2000-05-30 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Foremost of the above requisites is that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression; the absence of this requisite negates the existence of self-defense.[8] Evidence must positively show that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack on the person of the accused which placed him in danger and justified him in inflicting harm upon his assailant through the employment of reasonable means to repel the aggression.[9] | |||||
|
2000-01-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The rule is well-settled that when an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence to prove his claim shifts to him.[15] It is incumbent upon him to show the concurrent presence of all the elements of self-defense, namely, (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[16] Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element, whether in complete or incomplete self-defense.[17] He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused admitted to the killing.[18] | |||||