This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Self-defense is a time-worn excuse resorted to by assailants in criminal cases.[20] We have held in a host of instances that for self-defense to prosper, the following requisites must be met: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.[21] | |||||
|
2002-01-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's claim that he acted in defense of relatives (brothers), in our view, cannot be sustained. To invoke this justifying circumstance successfully, there should be reasonable necessity for the action taken as well as the means used.[24] Here, the weapon used and the grave wounds inflicted on the victims negate the reasonableness of appellant's action taken allegedly in defense of his brothers. Moreover, on this point, we find appellant's testimony on record to be unconvincing, confused, and evasive. Hence there is no sufficient proof of defense of relatives which, like self-defense, must be proved positively and convincingly. | |||||