This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-06-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| But above all, what convinces us to affirm the trial court's finding is the presence of badges of guilt that renders appellant's claim of self-defense dubious and unworthy of belief. First, the victim suffered a fatal wound at the chest. It lacerated his vital organs. The location of the wound belies and negates the claim of self-defense. It demonstrates a criminal mind resolved to end the life of the victim. Second, appellant failed to inform the authorities that he acted in self-defense. And third, he failed to surrender the knife to the authorities. We have ruled that failure to inform the authorities of the unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and to surrender the knife used in stabbing him militates against the claim of self-defense.[47] In People vs. Mier,[48] we also held that the non-presentation of the weapon which was allegedly used by the victim in attacking the accused and the failure of the defense to account for its non-presentation are fatal to the accused's plea of self-defense. | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Generally, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Having invoked self-defense as a justifying circumstance, however, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim, and the burden of proof is shifted upon him to establish and prove his claim.[17] To escape liability, he must show the concurrent presence of all the elements of self-defense, namely: (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.[18] | |||||