This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-09-10 |
CARPIO, ACTING C.J. |
||||
| Pedro Quintos admitted to hacking Robert dela Cruz and Freddie dela Cruz, and hitting Felomina dela Cruz, invoking self-defense. Because of Pedro's admissions, he and his co-conspirators assumed the burden to establish such defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, the same admissions would lead to their conviction.[18] | |||||
|
2014-04-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, it appears that not all the requisites of a dying declaration are present. From the records, no questions relative to the second requisite was propounded to Januario. It does not appear that the declarant was under the consciousness of his impending death when he made the statements. The rule is that, in order to make a dying declaration admissible, a fixed belief in inevitable and imminent death must be entered by the declarant. It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in point of fact that renders a dying declaration admissible. The test is whether the declarant has abandoned all hopes of survival and looked on death as certainly impending.[40] Thus, the utterances made by Januario could not be considered as a dying declaration. | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| "When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor."[38] Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused.[39] | |||||