Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. HERSON FLORAGUE Y ESTALILLA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
In March 1996, ARBA, as represented by its president, together with its members,[7] (hereafter referred to as "petitioners") filed before the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Region IV a complaint for maintenance of peaceful possession with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) against respondents.[8] Petitioners alleged that they are the actual occupants/farmers of the land. Between the 1950s and the 1980s, they entered the premises, established residence, and cleared and cultivated the same by virtue of the Green Revolution Program[9] of former President Ferdinand Marcos. On March 6, 1996, however, petitioners claimed that respondents caused the bulldozing and leveling of the mountains in the area and the dumping of earth in the creek.
	GR Nos. 138306-07 2001-12-21	PEOPLE v. SPO1 EDUARDO ANCHETA Y RODIGOL BELLOSILLO, J.
Further, Jonathan Aromin categorically and positively identified accused-appellant as the person who pursued and shot him at close range. This Court has no reason to doubt his testimony for even accused-appellant admitted that he and the witness were in good terms prior to the incident.[35] Neither does this Court have any ground to question the veracity of Leonila Lopez's testimony that she saw accused-appellant shoot Jonathan Aromin as there was no proved ill motive on her part. Thus, where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why prosecution witnesses should testify falsely against the accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, such testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit.[36] Besides, it has been an established rule that unless the trial judge overlooked certain facts of substance and value, which if considered might affect the result of the case, appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses.[37] We find no reason to deviate from this well-entrenched principle.
	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. 132354 2001-09-13	PEOPLE v. DEOMEDES IGLESIA MENDOZA, J.
This contention is untenable. A plea of self-defense shifts the burden of proof to the defense because the accused then admits having committed the criminal act and only disclaims liability on the ground that his life had been exposed to harm.[20] The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for even if the latter were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing.[21] The accused must establish the following requisites by clear and convincing evidence: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to present or repel such aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused.[22] Of these requisites, unlawful aggression, i.e., the sudden unprovoked attack on the person defending himself, is indispensable.[23] 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.[24]