This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Coming now to the second and third issues, which we shall discuss together. Once the accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was justified and that he incurred no criminal liability.[29] In this case, appellant clearly failed to discharge his burden. His uncorroborated, self-serving declaration of self-defense pales in the light of the testimonies of two impartial eyewitnesses as well as the medical evidence presented by the prosecution. As observed by the Solicitor General, when the appellant claimed self-defense, he must prove that the killing was justified clearly and convincingly on the strength of his own evidence.[30] Appellant can not rely on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence.[31] To say that the prosecution should have rebutted appellant's claim of self-defense, when appellant failed in his task of proving it, would be a procedural heresy. | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| amount of P50,000,00[38] is also proper for the pains and sufferings of the victim's widow which were sufficiently established by evidence.[39] Likewise, the order to pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses[40] in the amount of P20,000.00 is proper it appearing that the heirs of the victim engaged the services of a private prosecutor to litigate their cause.[41] As regards actual damages, the amount of P75,381.00[42] cannot be granted for failure of the prosecution to present competent proof for the full amount thereof. However, as the heirs of the victim actually incurred funeral and burial expenses, P21,500.00 | |||||