This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-03-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| When self-defense is invoked by an accused charged with murder or homicide he necessarily owns up to the killing but may escape criminal liability by proving that it was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. Hence, the three (3) elements of self-defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. However, without unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense, either complete or incomplete.[17] | |||||
|
2003-05-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Granting that the initial act of aggression came from the victim when he cursed and then punched appellant three times in the stomach, such aggression did not amount to actual or imminent threat to appellant's life as the victim already ceased and desisted thereafter. As defense witness Tallong testified, the victim was already walking slowly away towards his bunker[18] at the time appellant shot him incessantly. At that point, it was no longer necessary for appellant to shoot Obngayan in order to protect himself. As held in People v. More,[19] "In legitimate self-defense the aggression must still be existing or continuing when the person making the defense attacks or injures the aggressor. Thus when the unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the one making the defense has no more right to kill the former aggressor." | |||||