Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. AS VERJANON RABANAL

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 135981 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. MARIVIC GENOSA PANGANIBAN, J.
Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child. When the accused admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon her to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense (and similarly, defense of a stranger or third person) shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.[22]
	GR No. 137296 2003-06-26	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO VICENTE Y QUINTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
When the accused interposes self-defense, he must prove that: (1) he is not the unlawful aggressor; (2) there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part; and (3) he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression.[38] Although all these elements must concur, self- defense is perched on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.
	GR No. 123161 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. LIBERATO 'DUKDUK' SOLAMILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We find untenable Liberato's explanation that he went to Zamboanga City after the commission of the crime to look for his brother Julian. True, flight per se cannot prove the guilt of an accused, but if the same is considered in the light of other circumstances, it may be deemed as a strong indication of guilt.[30] His flight to Zamboanga City when linked with his presence at the bakery, the crime scene, and his possession of the victim's effects upon his arrest, strongly indicate his participation in the commission of the crime. Thus, the trial court correctly held that the circumstances taken together point to the fair and logical conclusion that appellant Liberato Solamillo is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide.
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As the Court pointed out in People v. Gadia[45]: "Where an accused invokes self-defense, the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life. For this reason he must rely on his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution,[46] for such can no longer be disbelieved after the accused admits the killing.[47] He must prove the presence of all the requisites 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) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[48] Of these requisites, the most decisive is that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. This is because the theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the aggression.[49] Hence, absent evidence of prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot prosper."[50]
	GR No. 132384 2001-09-21	PEOPLE v. MARLON GADIA MENDOZA, J.
Where an accused invokes self-defense, the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life. For this reason, he must rely on his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution,[33] for such can no longer be disbelieved after the accused admits the killing.[34] He must prove the presence of all the requisites 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; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[35] Of these requisites, the most decisive is that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. This is because the theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the aggression.[36] Hence, absent evidence of a prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot prosper.[37]
	GR No. 132384 2001-09-21	PEOPLE v. MARLON GADIA MENDOZA, J.
We cannot disregard the testimonies of the two credible eyewitnesses who pointed to accused-appellant as the aggressor. Considering the positive identification made by Roberto and Federico Gadia of accused-appellant as the killer of Rodolfo Gadia, accused-appellant's self-serving denial cannot be given credence.[41]