This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-04-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Before the accused enters his plea, a formal or substantial amendment of the complaint or information may be made without leave of court. After the entry of a plea, only a formal amendment may be made but with leave of court and if it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. After arraignment, a substantial amendment is proscribed except if the same is beneficial to the accused.[15] | |||||
|
2004-03-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's version that he "accidentally shot" the two victims is incredible. Accident is an exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code. It must be stressed that in raising this defense, appellant has the burden of the evidence and it was incumbent upon him to establish that he was exempt from criminal liability.[9] He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident, and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury. Considering appellant's evidence, it is clear that the requisites of accident as an exempting circumstance were not proven. First, appellant's manner of carrying his M-14 rifle negates his claim of "due care" in the performance of an act. Knowing that his rifle was automatic, he should have seen to it that its safety lock was intact. Worse, he admitted that his finger was constantly on the trigger. With the safety lock released and his finger on the trigger, how can we conclude that he acted with due care? We cannot accept his version that he was just following his trainer's instruction to release the safety lock while in a critical area.[10] For one, he never presented his trainer to corroborate his statement; and for another, he was not in a critical area. Second, the number of wounds sustained by the victims shows that the shooting was not merely accidental. Both victims sustained more than one wound. While it could have been possible that the first wound sustained by both victims was by accident, however, the subsequent wounds sustained by them in different parts of their bodies could not have been similarly inflicted. And third, appellant manifested an unmistakable intent to kill the victims when he reloaded his rifle after his first unsuccessful attempt to kill them. Jesus had already sought refuge by jumping into the truck when another bullet hit his right leg. Reynaldo was already running away when he was shot on his nape and right hand. That appellant chased the victims and shot them several times clearly show that he had the intent to kill them.[11] His defense must necessarily fail. | |||||
|
2000-06-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that the accused who invokes self-defense admits authorship of the killing. Hence, the burden of proof shifts to that person, who must then establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of the justifying circumstance listed under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code:[10] | |||||
|
2000-04-19 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and of its authorship. By this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must now establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of this justifying circumstance, to wit: (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 the part of the person resorting to self- defense.[16] In proving these elements, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence. He can no longer assail the weakness of the evidence against him simply because it cannot be disbelieve after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.[17] | |||||