This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[63] Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.[64] There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury.[65] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[42] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[43] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated even if the other elements are present.[44] To our mind, unlawful aggression is clearly absent in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2006-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Let it not be forgotten that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense.[47] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[48] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present.[49] To our mind, unlawful aggression, as an element of self-defense, is wanting in the instant case. | |||||
|
2004-03-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| However, we find that the trial court erred in finding that treachery exists in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Thus, for the crime to be qualified by treachery the following elements must be proved: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[13] Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. Hence, where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established from mere suppositions, drawn solely from circumstances prior to the killing.[14] In the instant case, it appears from the record that the attack was not so swift so as to render the victims off guarded. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, appellant could not have managed to "stealthily approach" and suddenly fire at the victims. Therefore the means in executing the crime cannot be considered deliberate. Besides, Jesus had the chance to jump into the truck after he was hit at the left leg. Reynaldo, on the other hand, was able to run away and take cover, though unsuccessful. As a matter of fact, the other laborers who were with the victims managed to evade the volley of bullets. It cannot be said, therefore, that the victims were unprepared to put up a defense. | |||||
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| While it was established that accused-appellant intentionally shot his brother Julian, the witnesses never saw how the killing started. Treachery cannot be considered where the witnesses did not see the commencement of the assault and the importance of such testimonies cannot be overemphasized considering that treachery cannot be presumed nor established from mere suppositions.[38] And where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established.[39] Hence, without the existence of treachery accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide in Crim. Case No. C-44939. | |||||
|
2000-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, having admitted the killing of Wapili, accused-appellant assumed the burden of proving legal justification therefor. He must establish clearly and convincingly how he acted in fulfillment of his official duty and/or in complete self-defense, as claimed by him; otherwise, he must suffer all the consequences of his malefaction. He has to rely on the quantitative and qualitative strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution; for even if it were weak it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[10] | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.[35] Thus, since the eyewitness failed to witness the initial attack inflicted on the victim, the qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be applied.[36] In the recent case of People v. Cario,[37] this Court ruled that: "Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. Thus, where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim | |||||