This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-11 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary.[38] Absent such actual or imminent peril to one's life or limb, there is nothing to repel and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries on another.[39] | |||||
|
2002-12-04 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| not on the weakness of that for the prosecution. Even if his evidence be weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused has admitted the killing.[36] Petitioner argues that it was the prosecution that indirectly raised the issue of self-defense. Hence, he could not be bound by it. This argument deserves scant consideration. As discussed earlier, the declarations contained in his Counter-Affidavit are admissions that may be | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of his defense.[23]3 In effect, he admits that he committed the killing and the burden is shifted to him to prove that the killing was justified. He must therefore establish the presence of the following requisites of self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.[24] | |||||