This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-12-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in a criminal complaint for violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code, the defense of improper use or motive is in the nature of a justifying circumstance that would exonerate those who raise and are able to prove the same. Accordingly, where the corporation denies inspection on the ground of improper motive or purpose, the burden of proof is taken from the shareholder and placed on the corporation.[33] This being the case, it would be improper for the prosecutor, during preliminary investigation, to refuse or fail to address the defense of improper use or motive, given its express statutory recognition. In the past we have declared that if justifying circumstances are claimed as a defense, they should have at least been raised during preliminary investigation;[34] which settles the view that the consideration and determination of justifying circumstances as a defense is a relevant subject of preliminary investigation. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, we held that unlawful aggression is a sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[42] It is an essential and indispensable requisite, for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be, in a jural sense, no complete or incomplete self-defense.[43] Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated even if the other elements are present.[44] To our mind, unlawful aggression is clearly absent in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Treachery under par.16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. Treachery is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person.[45] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not present in the case at bar. To benefit an accused, the following requisites of this circumstance must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[47] A surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done by the accused spontaneously and made in such manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[48] In this case, there is no indication in the record that the appellant, of his own accord, came forward and presented himself before the authorities, manifesting his desire to spare the Government the time, effort and expense of pursuing him.[49] The appellant surrendered only after the warrant of arrest was served upon him. The fact that the appellant did not defy but went peacefully with the arresting officer does not mean that he voluntarily surrendered. Hence, this mitigating circumstance can not be appreciated in favor of the appellant. | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is settled that where an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, he 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. Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the person claiming self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution.[36] | |||||
|
2003-10-15 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the civil liability of appellants, an award of additional damages is in order. Despite the lack of evidence therefor, temperate damages in the amount of P25,000 are awarded for the burial expenses incurred by the victim's heirs. [43] The presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery in the killing of the victim justifies the grant of P25,000 as exemplary damages. [44] Finally, in line with current jurisprudence, the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is sustained. [45] | |||||