This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Resolving the issues posed by the petitioner, as aptly pointed out by the OSP, indeed requires a review of the Sandiganbayan's findings of fact, which is generally not a function of this Court. The oft-quoted rule is that factual findings of the court a quo and its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[47] This rule, however, is not ironclad as it admits of exceptions[48] such as when the lower court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance,[49] which the Sandiganbayan, as will be discussed, committed in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed is met if the person invoking self-defense used a weapon or a manner equivalent to the means of attack used by the aggressor. The reasonable necessity of the self-defense utilized by an accused is to defend himself "depends upon the nature or quality of the weapon, the physical condition, the character, the size and other circumstances of the aggressor; as well as those of the person who invokes self-defense; and also the place and the occasion of the assault."[22] Moreover, the nature and location of wounds are considered important indicators whether or not to disprove a plea of self-defense.[23] | |||||