This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2004-01-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Modification of the award of damages, however, is in order. In line with current jurisprudence, the amount of P60,000 as civil indemnity is reduced to only P50,000.[46] Moral damages of P100,000 ought likewise to be reduced to P50,000, in view of the purpose for making such award, which is to compensate the heirs of the victim for injuries suffered and not to enrich them.[47] The claim for actual damages in the amount of P20,700, being supported by receipts, is well taken. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, he assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim.[35] This is known as a shift in the burden of the evidence, and as a result thereof the person claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's.[36] Furthermore, on appeal, appellant must show that the court below committed reversible error in appreciating the evidence.[37] | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. With no generic aggravating circumstance and one generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty imposable on the appellants, in accordance with Article 63 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, should be the minimum period, which is reclusion perpetua.[41] | |||||
|
2003-03-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| All told, accused-appellant's plea of self-defense must fail. His conviction necessarily follows on the basis of his admission to the killing. It is a hornbook doctrine that where self-defense is invoked, it is incumbent upon the accused-appellant to prove by clear and convincing evidence 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 and repel an aggression.[41] At the heart of these is the presence of unlawful aggression. Without it, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated.[42] Also, the accused-appellant must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it would not be disbelieved after his open admission of the killing.[43] | |||||
|
2003-02-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Consistent is the jurisprudence that where self-defense is invoked, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence 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 and repel an aggression. On appeal, the burden becomes even more difficult as the accused must show that the court below committed reversible error in appreciating the evidence.[26] | |||||
|
2002-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[18] In the case at bar, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. Aside from accused-appellant's self-serving statement, there is nothing to corroborate his statement that the victim attempted to stab PO2 Valencia. Defense witness Rosemarie Dionson testified that she saw the | |||||
|
2002-08-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| findings, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case.[14] After poring over the records of this case, especially the transcripts of stenographic notes, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has not been able to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||