This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2006-11-29 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| In essence, what petitioner is actually asking the Court is to determine whether he acted in self-defense, which is essentially a question of fact.[18] We have held repeatedly that this Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions brought under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law can be reviewed.[19] Since the petition is anchored on the claim of self-defense which is a factual allegation already rejected by the trial and appellate courts, the petition can be denied outright. | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,[22] in view of the finding that Marilyn suffered mental anguish and fear because of the incident.[23] In People v. Galvez,[24] this Court stressed that the purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings. | |||||
|
2003-10-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For self-defense to prosper, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[37] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[38] In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person - not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude - but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor.[39] | |||||
|
2003-07-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, appellant failed to show that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. Self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by competent evidence but is seriously doubtful.[11] Like alibi, self-defense is inherently a weak defense, which is so easy to concoct[12] but very difficult to verify. Appellant's invocation of self-defense therefore deserves scant consideration. | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Appellant invokes self-defense. It is settled that when an accused claims self-defense, the onus probandi to show that the killing was justified shifts to him. Even if the prosecution evidence was weak, it could not be readily dismissed considering that appellant openly admitted his responsibility for the killing.[11] | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the matter of damages, we affirm the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. As regards the actual damages, it appears that the trial court only awarded P10,500.00 when the prosecution was able to substantiate with receipts the amount of P40,000.00 representing funeral services and P10,500.00 as interment fee. The award for actual damages is therefore increased to P50,500.00. However, the award of P400,000.00 as moral damages is deemed excessive and not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. The amount of P50,000.00 is deemed reasonable. It must be stressed that the purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.[17] | |||||
|
2002-08-29 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.[13] Moreover, he cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself admitted the killing.[14] Hence, while it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime but only in his or another's defense.[15] Ei incumbit | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| on the part of the person defending himself.[10] Although all the three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete.[11] In other words in self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. It presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor.[12] In the case at bar, even if we sustain the version of accused-appellant that the initial act of aggression came from the deceased, we cannot uphold his plea of self-defense. While indeed, the drunken victim initially brandished his handgun and aimed it at accused-appellant, | |||||