Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENITO CALIM v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181753 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. RAMON PLACER BERSAMIN, J.
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, if no unlawful aggression from the victim is established.[16] In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributable to the victim is established, self-defense is not a defense, because there would then be nothing to repel on the part of the accused.[17]
	GR No. 190340 2013-07-24	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO RAMOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing as there is nothing to repel. The unlawful aggression of the victim must put the life and personal safety of the person defending himself in actual peril. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude does not constitute unlawful aggression.[18]
	GR No. 177743 2012-01-25	PEOPLE v. ALFONSO FONTANILLA Y OBALDO BERSAMIN, J.
Fontanilla pleaded self-defense. In order for self-defense to be appreciated, he had to prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[19] Unlawful aggression is the indispensable element of self-defense, for if no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense is unavailing, for there is nothing to repel.[20] The character of the element of unlawful aggression is aptly explained as follows: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
	GR No. 169084 2012-01-18	PEOPLE v. MELANIO DEL CASTILLO Y VARGAS BERSAMIN, J.
In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a condition sine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel.[22] The character of the element of unlawful aggression has been aptly described in People v. Nugas,[23] as follows: Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
	GR Nos. 116200-02 2001-06-21	PEOPLE v. PO3 ELEUTERIO TAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court held accused-appellants solidarily liable to the heirs of Gabitan for P200,000.00, and another P20,000.00 each to Juvith Cerilles and Edward Villaflor as indemnity. In murder, the civil indemnity has been fixed by jurisprudence at P50,000.00.[53] The grant of civil indemnity in murder requires no proof other than the fact of death as a result of the crime and proof of appellants' responsibility therefor.[54] On the other hand, the separate award of moral damages is justified because of the physical suffering and mental anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries or death.[55] The amount of moral damages is also fixed at P50,000.00 for murder.[56] For the less serious physical injuries, moral damages of P10,000.00 shall be sufficient. Exemplary damages can be granted only in cases where there is an aggravating circumstance.[57]