This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-11-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, the CA need have discussed in its decision the presence of a dying declaration or a statement as part of the res gestae, because petitioner Rodolfo admitted stabbing the victim but insists that he had done the deed to defend himself. It is settled that when an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim.[15] Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.[16] 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.[17] | |||||
|
2007-11-21 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, for the crime of kidnapping for ransom, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to R.A. No. 9346 and to pay the heirs of Libertador Vidal the amounts of P50,000.00 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages; and for the crime of murder, appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.[19] | |||||
|
2007-06-21 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that when an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim.[38] Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.[39] 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.[40] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We, however, agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that consistent with pertinent jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be reduced from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00.[45] Finally, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, the trial court correctly withheld the award of exemplary damages.[46] | |||||