This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-03-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On February 18, 1992, the RTC dismissed the ejectment cases on the ground that the subject property is an agricultural land being tilled by Amante, et al., hence it is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over the dispute.[18] The RTC's dismissal of the complaints was brought to the CA via a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33382.[19] In turn, the CA dismissed the petition per its Decision dated January 17, 1995 on the ground that SRRDC failed to show any prior physical possession of the subject property that would have justified the filing of the ejectment cases.[20] Also, the CA did not sustain the RTC's finding that the subject properties are agricultural lands and Amante, et al. are tenant/farmers thereof, as the evidence on record does not support such finding. The parties did not file any motion for reconsideration from the Court of Appeals' dismissal, hence, it became final and executory.[21] | |||||
|
2001-04-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. Accused-appellant argues that relationship should not be considered a qualifying circumstance as this was never alleged in the informations. Under R.A. No. 7610, §31(c), however, relationship is not a qualifying but only an ordinary generic aggravating circumstances and, therefore, although it was not alleged in the information can nevertheless be taken into account in fixing the penalty for the crime because it was proven. Accused-appellant fails to distinguish a generic aggravating circumstance from a qualifying circumstance. A generic aggravating circumstance provides for the imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum period, while a qualifying circumstance changes the nature of the crime.[37] | |||||
|
2000-06-20 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled in our criminal jurisprudence that when the accused invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove the existence of the following requisites: (1) unlawful aggression; (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. The most decisive of these is the requisite that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression.[22] Absent clear and convincing evidence of a prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot be given credence. | |||||