Digested Cases in Criminal Law
2000 CASE DIGESTS
C R I M I N A L L A W
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Self-Defense
The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and its authorship. By this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must establish all elements of the justifying circumstance. The nature and number of wounds inflicted disprove the plea of self-defense because they demonstrate determined effort to kill and not just defend himself. (People v. Magayac G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000)
It is a settled rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. (People v. Cotas G.R. No. 132043 May 31, 2000)
Unlawful aggression must refer to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing the intent of the aggressor to cause injury, not merely a threatening attitude. (People v. Sabdani G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000)
Defense of Property
This justifying circumstance cannot be appreciated when there was no attack made on the person claiming the benefit of this circumstance and when he merely suspected that his property was stolen. In this case, there was unlawful killing as the shooting of the alleged thieves were not reasonably necessary to defend his property. (People v. Ignacio G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Insanity
Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, connotes that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime, or that he must have acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the accused's mental faculties does not exclude imputability. (People v. Aquino G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000)
The totality of the acts will show whether the accused was fully conscious of what he was doing. (People v. Pambid G.R. No. 124453,
C R I M I N A L L A W
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Self-Defense
The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and its authorship. By this admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must establish all elements of the justifying circumstance. The nature and number of wounds inflicted disprove the plea of self-defense because they demonstrate determined effort to kill and not just defend himself. (People v. Magayac G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000)
It is a settled rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defender has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed. (People v. Cotas G.R. No. 132043 May 31, 2000)
Unlawful aggression must refer to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing the intent of the aggressor to cause injury, not merely a threatening attitude. (People v. Sabdani G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000)
Defense of Property
This justifying circumstance cannot be appreciated when there was no attack made on the person claiming the benefit of this circumstance and when he merely suspected that his property was stolen. In this case, there was unlawful killing as the shooting of the alleged thieves were not reasonably necessary to defend his property. (People v. Ignacio G.R. No. 134568 February 10, 2000)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Insanity
Insanity, under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, connotes that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime, or that he must have acted without the least discernment. Mere abnormality of the accused's mental faculties does not exclude imputability. (People v. Aquino G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000)
The totality of the acts will show whether the accused was fully conscious of what he was doing. (People v. Pambid G.R. No. 124453,