Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. CARLITO ARIZALA Y VALDEZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 176609 2008-12-18	FERNANDO ESTABAS MAHAWAN v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is axiomatic that where an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Accordingly, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused who must then prove with clear and convincing proof the following elements of self-defense: (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 defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply.[21]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril.[32] It is an act positively strong showing the intent of the aggressor and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. [33] It is also described as a sudden and unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the life, safety or rights of the person attacked.[34]
	GR NO. 165483 2006-09-12	RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As an element of self-defense, unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril.[31] It is an act positively strong showing the wrongful intent of the aggressor and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. [32] It is also described as a sudden and unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind to the life, safety or rights of the person attacked.[33]
	GR No. 134604 2003-08-28	PEOPLE v. ERNESTO HUGO DAVIDE JR., C.J.
When an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authority of the crime. Consequently, the burden of proving his guilt, which lies upon the prosecution, is shifted to him.[35] He must prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense, to wit: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution which, even if weak, could not be disbelieved on account of his own admission that he assaulted the victim.[36]
	GR No. 147149 2003-07-09	PEOPLE v. CARLOS MANANSALA VITUG, J.
The killing of Edgardo was attended and qualified by treachery, a circumstance alleged in the information. Treachery would be extant with the concurrence of two conditions; i.e., (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, and (2) the offender's deliberate or conscious choice of the means, method or manner of execution.[20] Although there might have been a brief exchange of words between the victim and appellant before the latter executed his dastardly act, with the appellant brazenly declaring that he was going to kill the victim, the attack was too sudden that, otherwise, could have allowed the latter a chance to defend himself or to retaliate.[21] The victim was roused from sleep by the arrival of appellant. While he acknowledged the presence of appellant by uttering, "Oh, Calo!" the victim did not rise up from bed but immediately went back to sleep. Appellant deliberately chose means to ensure execution of his criminal intent by squatting by the door and aiming his gun at the victim who, half-asleep and still lying down, was completely vulnerable.
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
Appellants had superiority in numbers and weapons. The victim was without any means to defend himself as no weapon was found or even intimated to be in his possession. The victim was running away from the "Jiffy" prior to the killing. That he was warned or threatened earlier is of no moment. Even when the victim is warned of danger to his person, if the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate, treachery can still be appreciated.[56] The victim was lying prostrate on the ground when he was deliberately and mercilessly riddled with bullets. The weapons used, the number of assailants, the swift and planned manner of the attack, and the multiple number of wounds inflicted upon the victim all demonstrate a determined assault with intent to kill the victim. No doubt there was treachery.