This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The January 31, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals[1] which affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71 of Iba, Zambales[2] convicting petitioner, Edwin Cabila, of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, "SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT," is before this Court on appeal. | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The mere fact that the attack against Lapidante and Lacaden was perpetrated when their backs were turned did not by itself constitute treachery or alevosia.[69] Whether the mode of attack was consciously adopted, and whether there was risk to the offender, must be taken into account.[70] Treachery cannot be considered when there is no evidence that the accused had resolved to commit the crime prior to the moment of the killing; or that the death of the victim was the result of premeditation, calculation or reflection.[71] | |||||
|
2003-10-27 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| By invoking self-defense, Alejandro had the burden of proving the existence of the following essential requisites: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. This he miserably failed to do. In fact, the records clearly establish that he was the aggressor. Without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be no viable self-defense.[31] | |||||