This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2001-12-21 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither was treachery established in the shooting of Jonathan Aromin. Two (2) conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely: (a) the employment of means of execution that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) the means or method of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[40] Both these circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.[41] | |||||
|
2001-09-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As for Crim. Case No. C-51277, accused-appellant admits responsibility for the injuries inflicted on Noel but reasons out that he did so only to defend himself. Accused-appellant therefore pleads self-defense, a justifying circumstance that could acquit him of the charge but which we are not disposed to grant as the elements necessary to qualify his actions[13] were not present. In alleging that the killing arose from an impulse to defend oneself, the onus probandi rests upon accused-appellant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements thereof: (a) that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) that there was reasonable necessity for the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defendant.[14] This, it has failed to discharge. | |||||
|
2000-11-23 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, circumstances qualifying a killing to murder must be proven as indubitably as the crime itself.[30] Evident premeditation, for instance, must be clearly proven, established beyond reasonable doubt and must be based on external acts which are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate planning.[31] In this case, no evidence was presented to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or the time which elapsed after the determination of the commission of the crime. Thus, evident premeditation cannot be considered.[32] | |||||