This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-03-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| From the foregoing testimony of accused-appellant himself, it is clear that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Balano that would justify accused-appellant to stab him. To justify an incomplete self-defense, the unlawful aggression must come from the victim himself against the person who resorted to self-defense.[34] In this case, if there was any, the unlawful aggression came from Tap-ing, who was the one who threw a stone and hit accused-appellant. The mere fact that Balano was alleged to be approaching accused-appellant with an ice pick does not constitute a real and imminent threat to one's life sufficient to create an unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression requires more than that. In People v. Arnante, as it is here, the "mere perception of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression."[35] In this case, there was not even any attempt on the part of Balano to strike or stab accused-appellant. If at all and assuming to be true, Balano's demeanor could be deemed as an intimidating attitude that is certainly short of the imminence that could give rise to the existence of unlawful aggression.[36] What is more, it was not him, but Tap-ing who had previously hit accused-appellant. Accused-appellant's own testimony also negates any intention on the part of Balano to cause him any harm. As he testified, even after he stabbed Balano, the latter never retaliated and struck back. Instead, he stabbed the coconut tree notwithstanding the fact that accused-appellant was within his reach. Certainly, nothing in the facts indicate any circumstance that could justify the stabbing and the ultimate taking of Balano's life. Accordingly, as We are not convinced that there was an unlawful aggression in this case on the part of the victim, Balano, an incomplete self-defense is wanting and accused-appellant's offense, therefore, cannot be mitigated. | |||||
|
2008-04-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In addition to the civil liability and moral damages, the trial court correctly made appellant account for P25,000.00 as exemplary damages on account of relationship, a qualifying circumstance, which was alleged and proved, in the crime of parricide.[32] | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| While we find credible the testimony of defense witness Azur that appellant reported Mercado's grudge against appellant and that appellant and Mercado were shouting angrily at each other, we cannot accept the assertion that a grudge and heated exchange of words are sufficient reasons to justify appellant's shooting of the victim three times. We have ruled before that neither an imagined impending attack nor an intimidating or threatening attitude is sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression.[19] The records of this case reveal that when the victim was shot first, he was sitting on a chair, fiddling with his cellular phone. Witness Azur categorically testified that when he saw appellant shoot Mercado the first time, Mercado was indeed seated on a chair tinkering with his cellular phone. According to Azur, appellant shot the victim thrice. The first hit the chair; the second, the victim's chest; the third, his back. Moreover, in his sworn statement, Azur stated it was appellant who dared the victim, "Paltogan kan to pay" [20] (You want me to shoot you?) and uttered, "Agpayso"[21] (That's true). Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger.[22] In our view, the evidence on record debunks appellant's assertion that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. | |||||