Lawyerly

GR No. 179709

2010-07-06

BERSAMIN, J.

justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.[28] The rationale for this requirement is that the accused, having admitted the felonious wounding or killing of his adversary, is to be held criminally liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of self-defense. Thereby, however, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi has shifted to him, because self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[29] He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, for, even if the Prosecution's evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved in view of the accused's admission of the killing.[30]

GR No. 186233

2009-10-02

PEOPLE v. ROMEO SATONERO

VELASCO JR., J.

On the other hand, the allegation of accused-appellant which pictured Ramon as purportedly pulling out a knife and attempting to stab the former came uncorroborated, although several onlookers--potential witnesses all--were at the situs of the crime. And while claiming to have grappled for some time with Ramon for the possession of the knife, accused-appellant managed to stay unscathed, which in itself is incredible. And lest it be overlooked, appellant failed, without explanation, to present the knife purportedly used by the victim. Jurisprudence teaches that the failure to account for the non-presentation of the weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-defense.[28] The Court, thus, joins the trial court in its determination, as affirmed by the CA, of the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Ramon.

GR No. 177564

2008-10-31

ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

This Court pored over the records of the case and found that Bryan's candid and straightforward narration of the brutal act perpetrated by Arturo on the night of the incident indubitably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a 19-year old young barrio boy would concoct a tale surrounding the atrocious killing of his grandmother, and would impute so grave a crime to someone he respected, had it not actually taken place. The defense cannot even come up with a decent imputation that Bryan was impelled by ill motive when he pointed at Arturo as the author of the carnage. This is so because there is no plausible reason why Bryan should testify against Arturo, if the latter has nothing to do with what had happened. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[24] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Bryan's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[25] So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.[26] In the instant case, Bryan gave a clear and convincing narration of the crime, identifying Arturo as responsible thereof. His lone testimony as an eyewitness, therefore, is sufficient to support a conviction.

GR No. 143718

2004-05-19

PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN”

CARPIO, J.

The testimony of one eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction provided it is positive, credible, clear and straightforward.[39] However, the weight of the eyewitness account should be on the fact that the witness saw the accused commit the crime and the witness could positively identify the accused.[40] A scrutiny of Chief Inspector Muksan's testimony shows that he did not actually see who was carrying the red Jollibee plastic bag containing the shabu or to whom this red Jollibee plastic bag was handed to during the sale. Chief Inspector Muksan testified that when he approached the informant and the pushers, the informant was already holding in her right hand the red Jollibee plastic bag.[41]

GR No. 141217

2003-09-26

PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Neither can appellant's claim that the victim was very drunk and armed with a bolo be believed. The result of the postmortem examination of the victim gave no indication that he was drunk. As for the claim that the victim was armed with a bolo, why appellant did not take the bolo, if indeed he had, after the victim fell down on being hit, is contrary to human experience. For an innocent man under similar circumstances would naturally take it with him to prove his claim of self-defense. Such course of action is fatal to such claim of appellant.[14] And so is his running away from the scene of the incident, for a truly innocent person would normally report the matter to the police.[15] But appellant did not. Instead, he immediately fled.

GR No. 148912

2003-09-10

PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS

PANGANIBAN, J.

Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[31] Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[32]

GR No. 139907

2003-03-28

PEOPLE v. MARCELO BATES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

[c]ircumstances which qualify criminal responsibility, such as treachery, cannot rest on mere conjecture, no matter how reasonable or probable such conjecture may be. They must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. Such circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance should be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[18]

GR No. 142874

2002-07-31

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ABAYON

PER CURIAM

and that the accused were responsible for killing them. We disagree. The testimony of a single witness if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.[13] In the instant case, Vicente gave a clear and convincing narration of the

GR No. 131839

2002-01-30

PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[14] From the version of the prosecution, which the Court finds credible, the deceased did not commit any unlawful aggression towards accused-appellant. On the contrary, it was accused-appellant who was the aggressor when he shot the deceased who was unarmed and raising his hands.

GR Nos. 140557-58

2001-12-05

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime, but only in defense of one's self.[51] In interposing self-defense, accused-appellant admits authorship of the killing and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that the killing was justified.[52] Going by accused-appellant's account in this case, Ganan's initial reaction hardly amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. According to him, the victim tried to grab his gun which was still tucked in his waist but accused-appellant beat Ganan to it by pulling the revolver out. With the firearm already in accused-appellant's hand, there was no chance for the victim to use it against him.

	GR No. 179709 2010-07-06	PEOPLE v. FILOMENO MAYINGQUE BERSAMIN, J.
justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.[28] The rationale for this requirement is that the accused, having admitted the felonious wounding or killing of his adversary, is to be held criminally liable for the crime unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of self-defense. Thereby, however, the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi has shifted to him, because self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.[29] He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, for, even if the Prosecution's evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved in view of the accused's admission of the killing.[30]
	GR No. 186233 2009-10-02	PEOPLE v. ROMEO SATONERO VELASCO JR., J.
On the other hand, the allegation of accused-appellant which pictured Ramon as purportedly pulling out a knife and attempting to stab the former came uncorroborated, although several onlookers--potential witnesses all--were at the situs of the crime. And while claiming to have grappled for some time with Ramon for the possession of the knife, accused-appellant managed to stay unscathed, which in itself is incredible. And lest it be overlooked, appellant failed, without explanation, to present the knife purportedly used by the victim. Jurisprudence teaches that the failure to account for the non-presentation of the weapon allegedly wielded by the victim is fatal to the plea of self-defense.[28] The Court, thus, joins the trial court in its determination, as affirmed by the CA, of the absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Ramon.
	GR No. 177564 2008-10-31	ARTURO REVITA 'ALIAS' ARTHUR v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court pored over the records of the case and found that Bryan's candid and straightforward narration of the brutal act perpetrated by Arturo on the night of the incident indubitably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a 19-year old young barrio boy would concoct a tale surrounding the atrocious killing of his grandmother, and would impute so grave a crime to someone he respected, had it not actually taken place. The defense cannot even come up with a decent imputation that Bryan was impelled by ill motive when he pointed at Arturo as the author of the carnage. This is so because there is no plausible reason why Bryan should testify against Arturo, if the latter has nothing to do with what had happened. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[24] Indeed, as a relative of the victim, Bryan's purpose would be to ensure that the real culprit is punished rather than put the blame on someone who is innocent of the crime.[25] So, also, the Court has repeatedly said that the testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict.[26] In the instant case, Bryan gave a clear and convincing narration of the crime, identifying Arturo as responsible thereof. His lone testimony as an eyewitness, therefore, is sufficient to support a conviction.
	GR No. 143718 2004-05-19	PEOPLE v. HAIRATUL JUBAIL y KILIH alias “SHAIRA JUBAIL y AHARUL” and RUAINA NURUDDIN y MOHAMMAD alias “RUAI NURUDDIN y HARIN” CARPIO, J.
The testimony of one eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction provided it is positive, credible, clear and straightforward.[39] However, the weight of the eyewitness account should be on the fact that the witness saw the accused commit the crime and the witness could positively identify the accused.[40] A scrutiny of Chief Inspector Muksan's testimony shows that he did not actually see who was carrying the red Jollibee plastic bag containing the shabu or to whom this red Jollibee plastic bag was handed to during the sale. Chief Inspector Muksan testified that when he approached the informant and the pushers, the informant was already holding in her right hand the red Jollibee plastic bag.[41]
	GR No. 141217 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. EUSEBIO DUBAN Y DOMINGO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Neither can appellant's claim that the victim was very drunk and armed with a bolo be believed. The result of the postmortem examination of the victim gave no indication that he was drunk. As for the claim that the victim was armed with a bolo, why appellant did not take the bolo, if indeed he had, after the victim fell down on being hit, is contrary to human experience. For an innocent man under similar circumstances would naturally take it with him to prove his claim of self-defense. Such course of action is fatal to such claim of appellant.[14] And so is his running away from the scene of the incident, for a truly innocent person would normally report the matter to the police.[15] But appellant did not. Instead, he immediately fled.
	GR No. 148912 2003-09-10	PEOPLE v. TIMOTEO ESCARLOS PANGANIBAN, J.
Unlawful aggression is a conditio sine qua non for upholding the justifying circumstance of self-defense.[31] Unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the other, there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, on the part of the latter. If there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense will have no basis.[32]
	GR No. 139907 2003-03-28	PEOPLE v. MARCELO BATES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
[c]ircumstances which qualify criminal responsibility, such as treachery, cannot rest on mere conjecture, no matter how reasonable or probable such conjecture may be. They must be based on facts of unquestionable existence. Such circumstances must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance should be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[18]
	GR No. 142874 2002-07-31	PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO ABAYON PER CURIAM
and that the accused were responsible for killing them. We disagree. The testimony of a single witness if credible and positive and satisfies the court as to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict.[13] In the instant case, Vicente gave a clear and convincing narration of the
	GR No. 131839 2002-01-30	PEOPLE v. ARANDE COLINA ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense cannot be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[14] From the version of the prosecution, which the Court finds credible, the deceased did not commit any unlawful aggression towards accused-appellant. On the contrary, it was accused-appellant who was the aggressor when he shot the deceased who was unarmed and raising his hands.
	GR Nos. 140557-58 2001-12-05	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO HERRERA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime, but only in defense of one's self.[51] In interposing self-defense, accused-appellant admits authorship of the killing and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that the killing was justified.[52] Going by accused-appellant's account in this case, Ganan's initial reaction hardly amounts to unlawful aggression as contemplated by law. According to him, the victim tried to grab his gun which was still tucked in his waist but accused-appellant beat Ganan to it by pulling the revolver out. With the firearm already in accused-appellant's hand, there was no chance for the victim to use it against him.

PEOPLE v. RAMON CAMACHO