This case has been cited 3 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] | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The CA was likewise correct in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused-appellants. For said circumstance to be appreciated, it must be spontaneous, in such a manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense of finding and capturing him.[26] In the case at bar, accused-appellants remained at large even after Judge Jose S. Sañez issued the warrant for their arrest on February 6, 1998. Accused-appellants surrendered only on September 9, 1998 after several alias warrants of arrest were issued against them. Hence, voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in their favor as mitigating circumstance. | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The well-settled rule is that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the appellate court will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court[14] since the latter is in a better position to decide this issue. [15] However, this rule is not absolute. It is subject to exceptions. One concerns a situation where the judge who penned the decision did not personally hear the evidence for the prosecution.[16] In the present case, Judge David Alfeche, Jr., the ponente, only inherited this case from Judge Amelita K. Del Rosario who conducted the trial and heard the witnesses testify. | |||||