This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2003-03-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.[1] | |||||
|
2002-09-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| clung to his determination; (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof during which the offender could have reflected upon the consequences of his act. These circumstances are manifested by the planning and preparation undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of the crime.[18] In the instant case, instead of ensuring impunity, accused-appellant and his companion executed the crime in broad daylight and in the presence of persons who could easily identify them. These facts do not bear the earmarks of a carefully planned murder. | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, a condition sine qua non for the successful invocation of self-defense.[25] He failed to show that his life was threatened and that the threat was imminent and actual, not imaginary.[26] It was established during trial that prior to the stabbing, the victim merely extended his lighted cigarette to accused-appellant. This cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as an unlawful aggression on the part of Homer. | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As for the issue of self -defense, it is an established principle that once this justifying circumstance is raised, the burden of proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who invokes it.[24] The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.[25] The condition of unlawful aggression is a sine qua non; otherwise stated, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.[26] | |||||
|
2002-01-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.[12] | |||||
|
2001-11-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength, which was also alleged in the Information, cannot likewise be appreciated. In People v. Flores,[62] this Court pointed out that this aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, gender, the physical sizes and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that accused-appellant utilized any notorious inequality to his advantage.[63] In other words, mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[64] | |||||
|
2001-11-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Abuse of superior strength cannot likewise be appreciated. In People v. Flores,[45] this Court pointed out that this aggravating circumstance necessitates the showing of the relative disparity in physical characteristics, usually translating into the age, gender, the physical size and the strength of the aggressor and the victim. There is no proof that accused-appellant utilized any notorious inequality to his advantage. In other words, mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.[46] | |||||