Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXEQUIEL SENOJA v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 157476 2011-03-16	VENANCIO GIVERO v. MAXIMO GIVERO BERSAMIN, J.
The restriction of the review to questions of law emanates from the Court's not being a trier of facts. As such, the Court cannot determine factual issues in appeals taken from the lower courts. As the consequence of the restriction, the Court accords high respect, if not conclusive effect, to the findings of fact by the RTC, when affirmed by the CA,[11] unless there exists an exceptional reason to disregard the findings of fact, like the following, namely:[12]
	GR No. 168169 2010-02-24	PEOPLE v. ALBERTO TABARNERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We disagree. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[42] There is incomplete self-defense when the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, and any of the other two essential requisites for self-defense.[43] Having failed to prove the indispensable element of unlawful aggression, Gary is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance, even assuming the presence of the other two elements of self-defense.
	GR No. 153287 2008-06-30	NOEL GUILLERMO Y BASILIANO v. PEOPLE BRION,J.
As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the mandatory element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of the two essential requisites.[42]
	GR NO. 168051 2006-09-27	PEOPLE v. HONORATO C. BELTRAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.[35] In order to constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.[36]
	GR NO. 165483 2006-09-12	RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent peril the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.[34] In order to constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. [35]
	GR NO. 153875 2006-08-16	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO DAGANI Y REYES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
All things considered, the appellants' plea of self-defense is not corroborated by competent evidence. The plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is in itself extremely doubtful.[27] Whether the accused acted in self-defense is a question of fact. Like alibi, the affirmative defense of self-defense is inherently weak because, as experience has demonstrated, it is easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove.[28] This Court, therefore, finds no reversible error on the part of the courts a quo in rejecting the claim of self-defense.
	GR NO. 150723 2006-07-11	RAMONITO MANABAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing the victim and the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life.[27] The accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are present.[28]
	GR NO. 160858 2006-02-28	ROLITO RABANAL v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
It is a well-entrenched rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions based on the said findings are accorded by this Court high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court of having been able to observe, at close range, the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testify.[15]