Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOMER CABANSAY Y PALERMO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179278 2008-03-28	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Self-defense as a justifying circumstance may exempt an accused from criminal liability when the following requisites are met, namely: (1) there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression was reasonably necessary; and (3) the person defending himself had not provoked the victim into committing the act of aggression.[27] The burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified is on the accused. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution.
	GR No. 126022 2002-03-12	PEOPLE v. RAUL CANTUBA PUNO, J.
We also find that treachery was proved. There are two requisites for the existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery, to wit: (1) the employment of the means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution.[38] When accused Cantuba held the hands of the victim, the latter was rendered defenseless and unable to repel the attack of the other accused. The attack was sudden and unexpected. Previous thereto, the accused and the victim had been drinking gin for two hours. There was no altercation. It was only when the victim stood up and asked permission to leave that the four accused, without warning, carried out their sinister plan. Moreover, Rosalinda testified that Raul held the hands of the victim and looked back at Ronnie, ostensibly as a signal of sort, after which, the latter immediately stood up and stabbed the victim. This was followed by another stab by Elenito and a hack by appellant Romeo. Clearly, the manner by which the killing was carried out was deliberately and consciously adopted to ensure the death of the victim.
	GR No. 132568 2002-02-06	PEOPLE v. MATT G. CAMPOMANES PUNO, J.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE THEORY OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE RAISED BY BOTH APPELLANTS DESPITE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAME."[23] Once again, the credibility of witnesses is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Well-entrenched is the rule that this Court will not interfere with the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses absent any showing of arbitrariness or oversight of material facts or circumstances.[24] This is based on the fact that the trial court had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses under grueling examination.[25] After a review of the evidence, we find no compelling reason to disturb the assessment of evidence made by the trial court. The identification of the accused by eyewitness Aureada was clear and positive, without any showing of ill motive on the latter's part. Following our unbending jurisprudence, such positive identification prevails over denial and self-serving evidence, and is sufficient for conviction.[26]
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In People v. Cabansay,[15] we reiterated the rule that self-defense, "[a]s a justifying circumstance shifts the prosecutorial burden of proving the guilt of the accused to the accused himself who must prove the elements of such defense, to wit: 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.[16] It is incumbent upon the accused to rely on the strength of his own evidence which must be clear, sufficient and convincing, and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution."[17]
	GR No. 139323 2001-06-06	PEOPLE v. CARLO ELLASOS Y MAURICIO GONZAGA-REYES, J.
The circumstance of treachery was also not proven. Treachery exists when the offender commits a crime against persons, employing means or methods which directly and specially insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[35] It must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself.[36]