Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 212565 2015-02-25	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN CASAS Y VINTULAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Preliminarily, Casas failed to prove any unlawful aggression on the part of either Joel or Eligio, which is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to obtain. As case law puts it, there can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[27] As shown by the records, it was Casas who was actually the aggressor, as he was the one who wielded a knife, brought it to bear on Eligio, then on Joel as he lay prostrate, and again on Eligio as he was fleeing.[28] Being the party initiating the attack, and overbearing with a deadly weapon, Casas cannot successfully claim that there was unlawful aggression. Verily, for unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude,[29]as against the one claiming self-defense. Evidently, the contrary happened in this case.
	GR No. 199579 2012-12-10	RAMON JOSUE Y GONZALES v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The weapon used and the number of gunshots fired by the petitioner, in relation to the nature and location of the victim's wounds, further negate the claim of self-defense. For a claim of self-defense to prosper, the means employed by the person claiming the defense must be commensurate to the nature and extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.[16] Considering the petitioner's use of a deadly weapon when his victim was unarmed, and his clear intention to cause a fatal wound by still firing his gun at the victim who had attempted to flee after already sustaining two gunshot wounds, it is evident that the petitioner did not act merely in self-defense, but was an aggressor who actually intended to kill his victim.
	GR No. 169871 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. JOSE N. MEDIADO BERSAMIN, J.
It is also notable that unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative. There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.[7] As the CA pointed out, however, Jose did not support his claim that Jimmy had committed aggression by punching Rodolfo and by throwing stones at him and his father.[8] In fact, he and his father were not able to identify any weapon used by Jimmy aside from the stone that he supposedly picked up from the ground. Even that testimony was contrary, for Jose testified that he had unsheathed his bolo and hacked Jimmy after dodging the stone thrown at him. Plainly, he did not establish with clear and convincing proof that Jimmy had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of them an imminent threat of great harm before he mounted his own attack on Jimmy.
	GR No. 186539 2010-06-29	PEOPLE v. MITSUEL L. ELARCOSA VELASCO JR., J.
Based on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Thus, when death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney's fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.[57] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of PhP 75,000 and moral damages of PhP 50,000 are awarded automatically.[58] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim,[59] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[60]
	GR No. 188602 2010-02-04	PEOPLE v. FORD GUTIERREZ Y DIMAANO NACHURA, J.
In Razon v. People,[19] we held: Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[20]
	GR No. 178205 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. LEO QUEMEGGEN NACHURA, J.
The Court notes that the CA failed to award civil indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of Suing. Civil indemnity is automatically imposed upon the accused without need of proof other than the fact of the commission of murder or homicide.[38] Thus, de Luna shall be liable to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Suing.
	GR No. 179708 2009-04-16	PEOPLE v. MARCELO ALETA ALETA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Assuming arguendo that Acob was indeed the aggressor, the aggression ceased the moment he was disarmed and already lying on the ground after being struck by Marlo. Even if Marlo's account that Duldulao approached with a piece of wood above his head, the same, albeit intimidating, cannot be said to reek of imminent and actual danger. When Marlo then continued to club Acob while in a prone position, and struck Duldulao after he had fallen, self-defense and defense of relative no longer avail.[13]
	GR No. 178540 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO SORILA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.[57] When death occurs due to a crime, the following damages may be awarded: 1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; 2) actual or compensatory damages; 3) moral damages; 4) exemplary damages and 5) temperate damages.[58] In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 and moral damages of P50,000.00 are awarded automatically.[59] Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim[60] owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. [61]