This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In order that defense of a relative is to be appreciated in favor of Ricardo, the following requisites must concur, namely: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no part in the provocation.[19] Like in self-defense, it is the accused who carries the burden to prove convincingly the attendance and concurrence of these requisites because his invocation of this defense amounts to an admission of having inflicted the fatal injury on the victim. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Q: And did the accused understand his rights? A: I believe he understood because he answered, "wala akong dapat pagsisihan." ("I have nothing to regret.").[45] Appellant's alleged confession at the police station lacks the safeguards required by the Bill of Rights. The investigating officer made no serious effort to make appellant aware of his basic rights under custodial investigation. While the investigating officer was aware of the appellant's right to be represented by counsel, the officer exerted no effort to provide him with one on the flimsy excuse that it was a Sunday. Despite the absence of counsel, the officer proceeded with said investigation. Moreover, the record is bare of any showing that appellant had waived his constitutional rights in writing and in the presence of counsel. As well said in People v. Dano, even if the admission or confession of an accused is gospel truth, if it was made without the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.[46] | |||||
|
2001-03-26 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It appears from the records of the trial court that the testimony of Joel Jabol was completed on September 28, 1989,[17] which means that either he was cross-examined by the defense or the latter was given an opportunity to cross-examine him. In fact, the factual findings of the trial court were based largely on the testimony of Joel Jabol.[18] In the absence of any showing that the same were reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, this Court accords the highest respect to the findings of fact by the trial court.[19] | |||||