This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-02-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and offers exculpation from liability for crimes only if satisfactorily proved. It requires (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused to repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on his part.[16] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Having admitted that he killed James, the burden of evidence that one acted in self-defense shifted to petitioner. Like an alibi, self-defense is inherently weak, for it is easy to fabricate.[61] It is textbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to show that the killing was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. Hence, he must prove the essential requisites of self-defense as aforementioned.[62] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Q: And relative to their position, could you see, we withdraw that, Your Honor. You could see the, which portion of the bodies of Beninsig and Calica? A: I saw the back of Sergio Beninsig and the front of Calica, ma'am.[29] Clearly, the act of Romeo in answering back to petitioner is insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the accused proves unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury.[30] In the case at bar, there was no previous attack that might have put petitioner on a defensive and violent stance. On the contrary, Federico testified on cross-examination that Romeo was not armed at that time.[31] | |||||