This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance which may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending himself.[29] Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite of self-defense.[30] Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.[31] Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense.[32] | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As the Court pointed out in People v. Gadia[45]: "Where an accused invokes self-defense, the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed the victim to save his life. For this reason he must rely on his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the prosecution,[46] for such can no longer be disbelieved after the accused admits the killing.[47] He must prove the presence of all the requisites 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; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[48] Of these requisites, the most decisive is that the victim was guilty of unlawful aggression. This is because the theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on the part of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the aggression.[49] Hence, absent evidence of prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot prosper."[50] | |||||