Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO BASADRE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 170462 2014-02-05	RODOLFO GUEVARRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Of all the burdens the petitioners carried, the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least. threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon. person.[32] The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[33]
	GR No. 191721 2011-01-12	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO Y ESTRADA VELASCO JR., J.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.[15] In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[16] It "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger - not merely threatening and intimidating action."[17] It is present "only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[18] Such is absent in the instant case.
	GR No. 192581 2010-11-17	PEOPLE v. DENNIS D. MANULIT VELASCO JR., J.
Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person.[37] In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.[38] It "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger--not merely threatening and intimidating action."[39] It is present "only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[40]
	GR No. 127492 2004-01-16	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO SANTOS TINGA, J,
Q In short, could this wound sustained by the victim be caused by his fall? A No, sir, these were hacking wounds, by falling, you cannot sustain hacking wounds.[45] A sudden and unexpected attack under circumstances which render the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia.[46] In the instant case, the attack on the victim was deliberate, sudden and unexpected. The victim was totally unaware of the impending attack, sustaining wounds on his back. All these indicate that the accused employed means and methods which tended directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense without risk to the offenders arising from the defense which the offended party might have made.[47]
	GR No. 137598 2003-11-28	PEOPLE v. JAYSON BERDIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Obviously, the manner of killing was deliberately adopted. It bears reiterating that Calejanan and Saluyo held the victim's hands when Berdin hacked his head twice with a bolo. And when the victim was about to fall, again Calejanan and Saluyo held him. At once, Berdin grabbed the victim's head and slashed his neck. There is treachery when the attack is sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim unable to defend himself.[55] Treachery, being attendant in the slaying of the victim qualifies the crime into murder.[56]
	GR No. 130523 2002-01-29	PEOPLE v. GARIO ALBA QUISUMBING, J.
To exculpate an accused from any criminal liability on the ground of self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. He must prove the following elements of self-defense by clear and convincing evidence: (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.[16]
	GR No. 135936 2001-09-19	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO MIRADOR MENDOZA, J.
Accused-appellant makes much of the fact that it was only on June 13, 1995 that Carmelita Nacario executed an affidavit identifying accused-appellant as the person who killed her husband on May 19, 1995. As found by the trial court, however, the delay was satisfactorily explained by the fact that Carmelita was in shock after witnessing the gruesome killing of her husband.[23] It has been held that delay in filing a criminal complaint does not impair the credibility of a witness if is satisfactorily explained.[24] Well-entrenched is the rule that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to great respect in the absence of any indication that it has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight or substance, which if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[25] In this case, the trial court found the testimony of eyewitness Carmelita Nacario to be straightforward and persuasive insofar as identifying accused-appellant as the person who killed her husband.[26]