This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses who testified that appellant stabbed Miguel Ablay abruptly without any provocation on the part of the latter, appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated assertion deserves scant consideration. It is a well-settled rule that a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful in itself.[17] Absent any showing that the prosecution witnesses were moved by improper motive to testify against the appellant, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[18] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Ninth, accused-appellant's allegation of self-defense was established solely by his testimony. He failed to corroborate his claim of self-preservation with evidence other than his own testimony. In this connection, it has been held that the plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful in itself.[42] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
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] | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
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] | |||||