This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-02-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's version that it was the victim who was armed with a knife and threatened to stab him was found by the lower court to be untenable. We agree with the lower court's conclusion. Assuming arguendo that there was indeed unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment appellant was able to wrestle the knife from him. Thus, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would justify the need for him to kill the victim or the former aggressor. This Court has ruled that if an accused still persists in attacking his adversary, he can no longer invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[13] The fact that the victim suffered many stab wounds in the body that caused his demise, and the nature and location of the wound also belies and negates the claim of self-defense. It demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life of the victim.[14] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The culpability of appellants and their co-accused is undeniable. Lauro was consistently identified by the witnesses as the person responsible for shooting both victims. At the same time, the existence of conspiracy among the assailants is patent. Conspiracy has been deduced by the Court in a case where three malefactors jointly lifted, carried and dumped their victim in a deep well filled with water head first and threw rocks inside the well to cover him;[48] by the successive acts of three appellants in shooting, clubbing and piercing the eye of the victim;[49] where one appellant put his arms around the body of the victim while his co-appellant held the thighs of the victim and while they held him down, one poked and fired the gun at the back of the head of the victim;[50] when two accused chased their victim into his house, kicked open the door to enter and then shot him;[51] and when one malefactor hacked the victim and two others chased after the latter to finish up the aggression they had started.[52] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| 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.[20] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[21] Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.[22] In the case at bar, appellant miserably failed to prove the indispensable element of unlawful aggression. The testimony of Daniel Satuito that appellant was the unlawful aggressor and that the victim, although he was intensely arguing with the latter, did not or was not able | |||||
|
2003-11-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When an accused pleads self-defense, he thereby admits authorship of the crime. Consequently, the burden of proving his guilt, which lies upon the prosecution, is shifted to him. He must prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of self-defense, to wit: (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.[32] Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[33] | |||||