This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The contention of Delos Reyes that the RTC erred in denying his motion to have an ocular inspection of the construction site also deserves scant consideration. It has been said that ocular inspection rests within the sound discretion of the court. Inspection may be granted only where it is reasonably certain that it will be of substantial aid to the court in reaching a correct verdict. The trial court in this case correctly refused to make the inspection where testimonial evidence adequately pictured the condition of the place. Thus, a view of the place would serve no useful purpose.[46] As correctly noted by the CA, considering the long lapse of time since the rape, the construction site would have been finished and many houses erected within the vicinity. | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As already stated, Efren claims that he acted in self-defense. Thus, he has the burden of proving: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[27] Efren testified that when Alfredo was about to stab him after a brief chase, Alfredo stumbled, releasing his hold of the bolo. Efren picked up the bolo, it was then that he stabbed Alfredo. Assuming arguendo that this version were true, unlawful aggression, assuming it was initially present, had already ceased the moment Efren had possession of the weapon and he no longer had any right to attack his alleged offender. With the absence of the primordial element of unlawful aggression, the other requisite of self-defense would have no leg to stand on.[28] Moreover, it is worth noting that appellant himself admitted that when he faced Alfredo at the center of the auditorium, he remembered that he had his own bolo, drew it and stabbed Alfredo several times. He could not even remember how many times he did. Clearly, even if we follow Efren's version, there was no reasonable necessity of the means employed by him to prevent or repel the alleged attack. The gravity of the wounds inflicted on the victim is indicative of a determined effort to kill and not just to defend.[29] | |||||
|
2000-01-18 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, for alibi to be given weight, accused-appellants must prove not only that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed but that they were so far away that it was physically impossible for them to be present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[19] The evidence on record reveals that it was not physically impossible for them to be at the locus criminis considering that all of them and their victim lived in a small barrio. In fact, the Alibs and the Calapans were neighbors, residing only fifty (50) meters from each other. | |||||