Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE RIMANO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 214883 2015-09-02	PEOPLE v. CRISTINA SAMSON MENDOZA, J.
In the case at bench, the lone stab wound located on the victim's chest supports the argument that Cristina feared for her life and this fear impelled her to defend it by stabbing him. It was a reasonable means chosen by her in view of the attending circumstances, to wit: that her stronger husband, who had earlier pointed the said knife to her throat, approached her and grabbed her arm, despite her plea that he refrain from coming near her; and that she had no other available means or any less deadly weapon to repel the threat other than the knife in her hand. She did not have the time or sufficient tranquillity of mind to think, calculate and choose the weapon to be used. In predicaments like this, human nature does not act upon the processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation.[24] When it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction that act or to mitigate his liability.[25]
	GR No. 171284 2015-06-29	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO DULIN Y NARAG BERSAMIN, J.
The accused who pleads self-defense admits the authorship of the crime. The burden of proving self-defense rests entirely on him, that he must then prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following elements of self-defense, namely: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[19] The most important of all the elements is unlawful aggression,[20] which is the condition sine qua non for upholding self-defense as a justifying circumstance. Unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the accused, self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, should not be appreciated, for the two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.
	AC. NO. 5321 2006-09-27	RAMON C. GONZALEZ v. ATTY. ARNEL C. ALCARAZ PANGANIBAN, CJ
Of these requisites, unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding both self-defense and defense of a stranger; the fundamental raison d'etre of these defenses is the necessity to prevent or repel an aggression.[15] The alleged throwing of coins by complainant cannot be considered a sufficient unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent threat to life and limb.[16] There was no aggression to prevent or repel. Absent this imminent threat, respondent had no legal reason to shoot "in the direction of complainant."
	GR NO. 153794 2006-06-26	SERGIO MARZONIA v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
In sum, we find no reversible error on the part of the trial and appellate courts in convicting Sergio of homicide for killing Eliseo. The trial court has also imposed the proper indeterminate prison term and the P50,000 civil indemnity. However, the P18,000 award of actual damages must be deleted, in the absence of competent evidence, such as receipts, to support the award. Nonetheless, we rule that Mrs. Sylvia Malla is entitled to temperate damages of P25,000 for her pecuniary loss, the amount of which cannot be proved with certainty.[44] She is likewise entitled to moral damages of P50,000 for the mental anguish she suffered because of the death of Eliseo.[45]