Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALEXANDER P. RUGAS v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 193169 2015-04-06	ROGELIO ROQUE v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, findings of facts of the RTC, its calibration of the testimonial evidence, its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect when affirmed by the CA,[14] as in this case. After all, the RTC "had the opportunity to observe the witnesses on the stand and detect if they were telling the truth."[15] "To [thus] accord with the established doctrine of finality and bindingness of the trial court's findings of fact, [the Court shall] not disturb [the] findings of fact of the RTC, particularly after their affirmance by the CA"[16] as petitioner was not able to sufficiently establish any extraordinary circumstance which merits a departure from the said doctrine.[17]
	GR No. 181594 2008-08-28	PEOPLE v. ROLLY FLORA Y CANDELARIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Herein, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were both correct when they held that the justifying circumstance of self-defense was baselessly invoked by appellant Rolly. The latter failed to discharge the burden of proving this justifiable circumstance. His claim that the victim initiated the fracas with his unlawful act of trying to stab the former is specious at best. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person - a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient.[41] But whether or not Rolly, indeed, acted in self-defense is a question of fact;[42] the well-entrenched rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court; and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[43]
	GR NO. 168997 2007-04-13	GREGORIO PELONIA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
First. Like alibi, self-defense is inherently a weak defense and can easily be fabricated. When the accused interposes self-defense, he hereby admits having caused the injuries of the victim. The burden of proof then shifts on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the confluence of the essential requisites for such a defense, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed and to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the prosecution's, for even if the latter is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing.[14] Petitioner failed to discharge his burden.
	GR NO. 168827 2007-04-13	BENJAMIN P. MARTINEZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the second issue, the rulings of the trial court and the appellate court are correct. Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense whether complete or incomplete is a question of fact,[46] the well-entrenched rule is that findings of fact of the trial court in the ascertainment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of the evidence on record affirmed, on appeal, by the CA are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by the Court and in the absence of any justifiable reason to deviate from the said findings.[47]