This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| By invoking self-defense, however, Fontanilla admitted inflicting the fatal injuries that caused the death of Olais. It is basic that once an accused in a prosecution for murder or homicide admitted his infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased, he assumed the burden to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence the justifying circumstance that would avoid his criminal liability.[22] Having thus admitted being the author of the death of the victim, Fontanilla came to bear the burden of proving the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court,[23] and he would be held criminally liable unless he established self-defense by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[24] He should discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, because the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, would not be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.[25] Nonetheless, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remained with the State until the end of the proceedings. | |||||
|
2012-01-18 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| By invoking self-defense and defense of strangers, Arnold and Joven in effect admitted their parts in killing the victims. The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused's defense is self-defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.[24] The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[25] He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, considering that the Prosecution's evidence, even if weak, cannot be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.[26] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.[28] The rationale for this requirement is that the accused, having admitted the felonious wounding or killing of his adversary, is to be held criminally liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of self-defense. Thereby, however, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi has shifted to him, because self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[29] He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, for, even if the Prosecution's evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved in view of the accused's admission of the killing.[30] | |||||