This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-11-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| This contention has no merit. To begin with, by invoking self-defense, accused-appellant admits to the crime for which he is charged and, therefore, it becomes incumbent upon him to prove (a) that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression; (b) that there was reasonable necessity for the means employed by him to repel the aggression; and (c) that there was sufficient provocation on his (accused-appellant's) part.[12] Proof of the first requirement (unlawful aggression of the victim) is indispensable since the theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. Even if initially there was unlawful aggression, the person attacked has no more right to kill or wound the former aggressor the moment the aggression ceases. When the danger or risk to him has disappeared, there should be a corresponding cessation of hostilities on the part of the person defending himself.[13] | |||||