Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO ENFECTANA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 146810 2004-05-27	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO DELMINDO QUISUMBING, J.
Well established is the rule that once the justifying circumstance of self- defense is invoked, the onus probandi of proving its elements shifts to him who invokes it.[39] Thus, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, the charge cannot be readily dismissed, considering that the accused had openly admitted authorship of the killing. Having admitted killing the victim, in this case, appellant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense by establishing: (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. [40]
	GR No. 126281 2003-06-10	PEOPLE v. SERGIO A. CARATAO AZCUNA, J.
To prove self-defense, the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the victim committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) that there was reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense was not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.[38]
	GR No. 139879 2003-05-08	PEOPLE v. GABRIEL ANNIBONG Y INGGAO QUISUMBING, J.
The elements of self-defense are (1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) that there is reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression.[17]
	GR Nos. 137458-59 2003-04-24	PEOPLE v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY QUISUMBING, J.
It may be noted that the testimony given for the prosecution and that of the defense are diametrically opposed to each other. In resolving such conflict, dealing as it does with the credibility of the witnesses, the usual rule is for this Court to respect the findings of the trial court as it was in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[23] However, the rule does admit of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of such weight and substance as to affect the very results of the case.[24] The factual findings of the trial court may be reversed if by the evidence on record or lack of it, it appears that the trial court erred.[25]
	GR No. 146189 2003-02-24	PEOPLE v. ARTEMIO GARILLO QUISUMBING, J.
In assessing the credibility of witnesses, this Court gives great respect to the evaluation of the trial court for it had the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses and their deportment on the witness stand, an opportunity denied the appellate courts, which merely rely on the records of the case.[35] This rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as when the evaluation was reached arbitrarily or when the trial court ignored or failed to appreciate certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. [36]
	GR No. 134759 2002-09-19	PEOPLE v. ORLANDO M. GUERRERO QUISUMBING, J.
The proven sequence of events militates against appellant's attempt to exculpate himself. Appellant admitted he was able to strike twice at the victim Ernesto Ocampo with the wooden club, which caused Ernesto to stagger and step back. By this time, any aggression on the victim's part had already been repelled successfully by appellant. Moreover, appellant was already able to take possession of the fatal "rambo" knife without any sign of struggle from the victim who lay prostate on the ground. At this juncture, appellant had dramatically turned the situation in his favor. Thus, further heinous attacks upon the hapless victim's person could not, in our view, be considered as acts of self-defense. As we have previously held in People vs. Enfectana:[61]