Monday, May 18, 2015

No Self Defense; treachery is present.

See - No Self Defense…
See -

"x x x.

What are the elements of self-defense, and did Francisco met the requirements in order for him to be acquitted of the charge for murder?
“Case law has it that where the accused interposes the justifying circumstance of self-defense, he is burdened to prove with clear and convincing evidence the confluence of the following essential elements:
(1) there must be unlawful aggression by the victim;
(2) that the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression were reasonable; and
(3) that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because if the accused fails to discharge his burden, the evidence of the prosecution can no longer be disbelieved. Unlawful aggression is a sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude. Absent unlawful aggression, no self-defense, complete or incomplete, may be successfully pleaded. A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated in favor of the accused where it is not only corroborated by independent and competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful by itself.
The appellant failed to prove his defense with the requisite quantum of evidence. The only evidence adduced by the appellant to prove his defense is his testimony which is tenuous and implausible, if not discordant.”
x x x
“On the third assignment of error, we agree with the trial court that the appellant killed the victim with treachery. Although the appellant attacked the victim frontally, the attack was sudden and unexpected, without giving the victim any opportunity to repel the attack or offer any defense especially since the victim was unarmed”"
G.R. No. 134563 October 28, 2003, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.FRANCISCO DALA, appellant.