This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-11-25 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant Lutgardo testified that he and Pedro grappled for possession of the knife during the incident. He shouted for help to appellant Romulo, who then came to his aid by hitting Pedro with a ukulele. This enabled appellant Lutgardo to snatch the knife from Pedro and to eventually stab the latter with it.[38] It appears from the foregoing that the alleged unlawful aggression on the part of Pedro ceased to exist when appellant Lutgardo seized the knife from the former, as there was no more actual danger on appellant Lutgardo's life. The latter then had no justifiable reason to stab Pedro in the stomach. In valid self-defense, the aggression still exists when the aggressor is killed or injured by the person making a defense. Thus, when the unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the person defending has no more right to kill or even injure the aggressor.[39] | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression by the victim is a primordial element of self-defense; without it, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete.[22] To be appreciated, the unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made.[23] A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased.[24] In this case, the trial and appellate courts correctly held that while Serafin initially attacked petitioner with a bolo, the unlawful aggression already ceased when the latter was able to go inside his brother's house and the former ran away. At this point, there was no longer any danger on his life; thus, there was also no necessity to "defend" himself by pursuing and attacking Serafin. | |||||
|
2004-03-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| However, we find that the trial court erred in finding that treachery exists in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Thus, for the crime to be qualified by treachery the following elements must be proved: (1) the means of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.[13] Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. Hence, where no particulars are shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim began and developed, treachery can in no way be established from mere suppositions, drawn solely from circumstances prior to the killing.[14] In the instant case, it appears from the record that the attack was not so swift so as to render the victims off guarded. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, appellant could not have managed to "stealthily approach" and suddenly fire at the victims. Therefore the means in executing the crime cannot be considered deliberate. Besides, Jesus had the chance to jump into the truck after he was hit at the left leg. Reynaldo, on the other hand, was able to run away and take cover, though unsuccessful. As a matter of fact, the other laborers who were with the victims managed to evade the volley of bullets. It cannot be said, therefore, that the victims were unprepared to put up a defense. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Like any aggravating or qualifying circumstance, evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[59] To prove evident premeditation, the prosecution is tasked to show: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[60] Evident premeditation is not presumed from the mere lapse of time.[61] It may only be appreciated when the execution of the crime is preceded by cool thought and deliberate reflection upon the resolution to carry out the felonious intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[62] | |||||
|
2003-11-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule in criminal cases that the prosecution has the onus probandi in establishing the guilt of the accused.[9] However, where the accused admits commission of the crime but invokes self-defense, the basic rule that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the prosecution is reversed, and the burden of proof is shifted to the accused to prove the elements of his defense.[10] It then becomes incumbent upon him to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing.[11] Hence, if the accused fails to discharge the burden of proof, his conviction must ensue as a matter of consequence. [12] | |||||