This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-07-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Based on the afore-quoted provision, both self-defense and defense of relatives require that unlawful aggression be present in order to be held valid. "For the accused to be entitled to exoneration based on self-defense or defense of relatives, complete or incomplete, it is essential that there be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, for if there is no unlawful aggression, there would be nothing to prevent or repel. 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."[42] | |||||
|
2009-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is evident that the incident began with mere jokes between Ruperto and the victim while they were intoxicated. When Ruperto struck the victim with a piece of wood, the victim retaliated by pushing Ruperto, further infuriating the latter. From Quijano's testimony, it was Ruperto who struck first, not the victim. Furthermore, after the victim pushed Ruperto, the fight was stopped and Ruperto went home. At this point, there was no threat or aggression to repel anymore, assuming there was one in the first place. The victim's action hardly constitutes unlawful aggression since it was a reaction to Ruperto's assault with a piece of wood. After that push, the victim ceased to attack him. Where the inceptual unlawful aggression of the victim had already ceased, the accused had no more right to kill the victim.[16] To support a claim of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the victim be simultaneous with the attack on the accused, or at least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.[17] This was not met in this case. Based on the testimonial evidence, there was a lapse of time between the altercation with the victim and his murder. | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, witnesses do remember with a high degree of reliability the identities of criminals, and the time and manner they committed the crimes.[17] Evelyn was not merely physically attacked. An attempt upon her honor was made as well, and not merely by a stranger but by the brother of her fiancé no less. As such, an unwavering and categorical identification of her assailant was to be doubly expected. Experience shows that oftentimes a startling occurrence creates an indelible impression in the mind that can be recalled vividly.[18] | |||||
|
2004-06-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court gave credence and probative weight to the testimonies of Randy and Rona. The well-settled rule is that findings of a trial court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, as the trial judge has a clear advantage over the appellate magistrate in appreciating testimonial evidence. The trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witness as he had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Where, as in this case, there is no showing that the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case. The findings of the trial court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.[14] | |||||
|
2004-05-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| We agree with appellants that the aggravating circumstances of band and uninhabited place although established by the prosecution evidence should not have been appreciated by the trial court because they were not alleged in the two Informations as required by the aforequoted Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It may be noted that the crime was committed in 1998, before the effectivity of the said Revised Rules on December 1, 2000. However, the Rules may be applied retroactively because they are more favorable to the appellants.[48] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| But even granting arguendo that Celestino did kick Paul Tagana on the chest, that by itself cannot be considered sufficient to exculpate him from criminal liability. For self-defense to prosper, it is most crucial that unlawful aggression was committed by the victim against the accused. Without it, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and will not be appreciated even if the other elements are present.[38] Unlawful aggression refers to an attack amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense and not just a threatening or intimidating attitude.[39] Mere kicking on the chest cannot be considered as an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of Paul Tagana, specially considering the testimony of the latter that Celestino Buoy was not armed at the time.[40] | |||||
|
2004-03-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| … [T]he trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt and innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insistent assertion; or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie; or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer; or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion, or looked down in confession, or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.[52] An exception to the general rule is when the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would alter the outcome of the case.[53] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Although the crimes were committed before the effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the same should apply to this case as it is favorable to the appellant.[18] | |||||
|
2003-10-13 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The appellant's denial of the crime charge is a negative self-serving evidence. Like alibi, it cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution who are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law, and who have no reason to fabricate the charge against him.[19] Alibi is one of the weakest, if not the weakest defense in criminal cases. Unless clear and convincing evidence is adduced by the appellant to prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the situs criminis when it was committed, his alibi cannot prevail.[20] The appellant failed to prove his alibi. He relied solely on his testimony to prove his defense. He also failed to adduce corroborative evidence. | |||||