This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2002-08-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| accused-appellant, his uncle. As in the recent case of People v. Herrera,[18] accused-appellant suddenly positioned himself at the back of the unsuspecting victim, pointed his gun at him and, without any warning, promptly delivered the fatal shot. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life and the danger that lurked behind him. There was no way the victim could have defended himself, taken flight or avoided the assault. Thus, the attendance of treachery qualified the killing to Murder. However, we take exception to the finding of the trial court that the killing of Cecilio Roldan was premeditated. Like treachery, the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty as the criminal act itself, in order for it to be appreciated as a | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense.[23]3 In effect, he admits that he committed the killing and the burden is shifted to him to prove that the killing was justified. He must therefore establish the presence of the following requisites of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[24] | |||||