This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must rest on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[13] The requisite of unlawful aggression is indispensable. There can be no self-defense unless it is proven that there had been unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the assailant.[14] If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[15] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Long settled in criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court. This rule is justified by the fact that the trial court is in a better position to decide the question. Having the advantage of directly observing witnesses, "the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.[93] | |||||
|
2002-09-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| neglected to consider significant facts that could alter the result, the assessment regarding the credibility of a witness by the trial court is entitled to great respect. As held in People vs. Antonio: [15] Long settled in criminal jurisprudence is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court. This rule is justified by the fact that the trial court is in a better position to decide the | |||||
|
2002-06-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After a careful review of the record, we find no cogent reason to overturn the assailed decision of the trial court. By invoking self-defense, the burden is placed upon appellant to prove clearly and convincingly the elements thereof: unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[18] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.[19] If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[20] In this case, appellant's testimony miserably failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. He claims that it was the victim who, without provocation on his part, suddenly attacked him. To defend himself, he was constrained to pull out the knife from his waist and stab the victim on the chest. | |||||
|
2002-04-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant's main defense of alibi and denial, i.e., that he was then at the seashore catching shrimps[70] in the evening just before the alleged rape, is equally unavailing. For alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be strictly met.[71] It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else when the offense was committed. It must likewise be shown that he was so far away that it was impossible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[72] No such showing was made here by appellant. | |||||