This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-12-10 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| While the three elements quoted above must concur, self-defense relies, first and foremost, on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, then no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.[13] "Unlawful aggression" here presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger of the attack, from the victim.[14] | |||||
|
2011-07-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Q Now after they attacked Bingky Campos what did they do? A They were not able to hit again Bingky because Bingky ran away. Q How about you? What did they do to you? A I was held by the other person when he approached me because Bingky was no longer there. Q And who was that person who held you? A I do not know him. Q How about now, do you know his name? A What I know only was Jaime and Iko. Q Who [between] the two, Jaime and Iko [took] hold of you? A Jaime and Iko were not able to hold me. Q Was there an attempt by Jaime and Iko to maul you also? A Yes. Q What did they do? A They kicked my left butt and the other person held me. Q Then what did you do? A I pulled a knife from my waist. Q Who [between] the two kicked you at your butt and who was the person who took hold of you? A It was Iko who kicked my buttocks but the other person who held me, I do not know his name. Q Now what happened when you drew you[r] knife? A The two persons who attempted to attack me, when I pulled a knife, I thrust the knife to the person who rushed at me. Q Did you hit that person? A Yes, he was hit. Q Where was he hit? A At the side. Court Interpreter: The witness is touching his lower right side. Atty. Vailoces: Q And what were the other companions doing at that time? Witness: A After thrusting the knife to the person, I ran away and the three (3) ran after me. [17] As can be gleaned from the foregoing narration, there is no mention at all that Romeo was among the four persons who allegedly attacked Danny and Bingky. Likewise, there is nothing in the narration which evinces unlawful aggression from Romeo. Danny's testimony shows that there was only an attempt, not by Romeo but by Jaime and Iko, to attack him. Following his version, Danny then became the aggressor and not the victim. Even if the version of Danny is given a semblance of truth, that there was an attempt to hurt him, though intimidating, the same cannot be said to pose danger to his life and limb. This conclusion was drawn from the fact that no bladed weapon was found at the alleged scene of the crime and nobody testified about it. 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" [18] and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. For this reason, Danny's observation that one of the men was pulling an object from his waist is not a convincing proof of unlawful aggression. "[A] threat, even if made with a weapon or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient." [19] An intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough. In this case, other than the self-serving allegation of Danny, there is no evidence sufficiently clear and convincing that the victim indeed attacked him. The prosecution's rebuttal witnesses Jaime Maquiling and Francisco Austero [20] who admittedly were among those whom Danny and Bingky had an encounter with on the night of August 19, 2001, never said in their testimonies that Romeo attacked Danny and a bladed weapon was used. These witnesses were categorical that Romeo was not with them during the incident. This testimonial evidence was not refuted by the defense. Even Bingky who claimed to be a friend of Romeo [21] was not able to identify the latter as one of those present at the time. Candid enough, Bingky declared that it was only a certain Ago and Jaime who confronted Danny. [22] Resultantly, Danny failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression, the most indispensable element of self-defense. Where "no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded." [23] | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| One who admits killing or fatally injuring another in the name of self-defense bears the burden of proving: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. By invoking self defense, the burden is placed on the accused to prove its elements clearly and convincingly. While all three elements must concur, self-defense relies first and foremost on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression is proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded.[8] Accused-appellant has failed to discharge his burden of proving unlawful aggression. His version of the events is uncorroborated, and his testimony has been found to be less credible by the trial court. The victim was not in the process of attacking accused-appellant from behind, but rather had been seated at a table during a birthday celebration. Accused-appellant was the instigator, not the victim, Gaudencio. As the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is absent, accused-appellant's claim of self-defense must fail. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
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] | |||||
|
2008-01-22 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. However, we cannot sustain the trial court's award for actual damages in the amount of P113,776.00. While the victim's mother, Marqueza Badinas, testified on the civil aspect of the case, she only presented a list of expenses without submitting the corresponding receipts.[20] The trial court awarded the same noting that it was "agreed upon during trial."[21] This is not allowed. The award of actual damages is proper only if the actual amount of loss was proven with a reasonable degree of certainty. It should be supported by receipts.[22] Thus, actual or compensatory damages cannot be awarded. | |||||