This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. However, if the accused admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part.[14] Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act.[15] | |||||
|
2013-02-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The most important among all the elements is unlawful aggression. "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense."[30] "Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life."[31] "Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense."[32] | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| With respect to damages, the CA correctly awarded the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages, they being consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.[26] In People of the Philippines v. David Maningding,[27] we ruled that when the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the proper amounts should be P 50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P 50,000.00 as moral damages. | |||||
|
2012-02-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Murder was committed, considering the use of treachery in a killing that does not fall within the definition of parricide under Article 246 of the Code. Thus, the RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the appellant, absent any attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.[23] In this regard, we also uphold the CA's award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for the death of the victim.[24] However, we modify the other awards given by the CA to conform to prevailing jurisprudence. | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| To be convicted of murder, the following must concur: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing does not constitute parricide or infanticide.[36] | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Finally, consistent with recent jurisprudence on damages,[57] interest on all damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully paid is likewise hereby imposed. | |||||