This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The observation of the RTC dispels any doubt that the gun may have been shot accidentally to the detriment of Jeffrey. The fire was neither a disaster nor a misfortune of sorts. While petitioner may not have intended to kill Jeffrey at the onset, at the time he clicked the trigger thrice consecutively, his intent to hurt (or even kill) Jeffrey was too plain to be disregarded. We have held in the past that the nature and number of wounds are constantly and unremittingly considered important indicia which disprove a plea of self-defense.[28] Thus, petitioner's contention that an accident simultaneously occurred while he was in the act of self-defense is simply absurd and preposterous at best. There could not have been an accident because the victim herein suffered a gunshot wound on his head, a vital part of the body and, thus, demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life of the victim. | |||||
|
2003-09-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real chance to put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the commission of the attack without risk to the aggressor.[33] Treachery requires the concurrence of two conditions: (1) the employment of a means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[34] | |||||
|
2003-06-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| But above all, what convinces us to affirm the trial court's finding is the presence of badges of guilt that renders appellant's claim of self-defense dubious and unworthy of belief. First, the victim suffered a fatal wound at the chest. It lacerated his vital organs. The location of the wound belies and negates the claim of self-defense. It demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life of the victim. Second, appellant failed to inform the authorities that he acted in self-defense. And third, he failed to surrender the knife to the authorities. We have ruled that failure to inform the authorities of the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and to surrender the knife used in stabbing him militates against the claim of self-defense.[47] In People vs. Mier,[48] we also held that the non-presentation of the weapon which was allegedly used by the victim in attacking the accused and the failure of the defense to account for its non-presentation are fatal to the accused's plea of self-defense. | |||||
|
2003-03-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| And third, accused-appellant failed to inform the police that he acted in self-defense. There is nothing in the records that his immediate outcry to SPO2 Jarabejo was self-defense.[38] While he tried to convince the trial court that he did not escape nor evade arrest after committing the crime, however, Salvador and Sarmiento testified that accused-appellant did not voluntarily surrender himself. He was constrained to do so at a gunpoint.[39] In a number of cases, this Court ruled that failure to inform the police of the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and to surrender the knife used in stabbing him militates against the claim of self-defense.[40] | |||||