This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2004-01-15 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A No ma'am. Because of the swinging, I was able to push it accidentally towards Gloria.[15] (Emphasis Ours) Accident and self-defense are two incompatible defenses. Accident presupposes lack of intention, while self-defense assumes voluntariness, but induced only by necessity.[16] | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| testimonies of Perolino and Aviles corroborate each other, and support the prosecution's stance. They are also more in accord with human experience. Self-defense is induced by necessity.[16] Yet, nowhere in appellant's version of the incident can it be gleaned that he was hard-pressed to defend himself. There was no proof at all that his life was placed in danger, or that circumstances existed | |||||
|
2002-02-13 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The significance of a victim's realization or consciousness that he was on the brink of death cannot be gainsaid. Such ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order because at the threshold of death, all thoughts of fabricating lies are stilled. The utterance of a victim made immediately after sustaining serious injuries may be considered the incident speaking through the victim. It is entitled to the highest credence.[7] | |||||
|
2002-01-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds that the killing was attended by treachery judging from the circumstances surrounding the incident, as well as from the manner with which the attack was carried out. The fact that the wife of the victim, and most probably so, the victim himself, noticed that accused-appellant was carrying a knife, does not in anyway serve as a warning of any impending peril on the victim's life. As established here, there was no previous animosity between the victim and accused-appellant. Understandably, it would have never occurred to the victim that accused-appellant would use the knife to stab him. The same holds true notwithstanding the victim's failure to deliver the goods to accused-appellant's house. The victim's wife testified that though she saw the knife carried by accused-appellant, she did not warn her husband because it never crossed her mind that he would stab him as her husband was already old.[27] Moreover, the fact that the victim's injury was frontal does not preclude the finding of treachery.[28] This is so, not only because the victim was unarmed, but more importantly, because he was not in a position to defend himself from the attack of accused-appellant considering that he was in a stooping position and was about to give the goods to accused-appellant when the latter delivered the fatal blow. | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There being no modifying circumstances to be appreciated, the proper imposable penalty for the killing of Enrique Ganan is reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659.[88] | |||||