0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
146 visualizzazioni1 pagina
Petitioner shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the physical evidence from the victim's body contradicted petitioner's story. The trajectory of the bullets showed the shooting was not done in self-defense. Additionally, the means used, multiple gunshot wounds, were disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of homicide and did not act in self-defense.
Petitioner shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the physical evidence from the victim's body contradicted petitioner's story. The trajectory of the bullets showed the shooting was not done in self-defense. Additionally, the means used, multiple gunshot wounds, were disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of homicide and did not act in self-defense.
Petitioner shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense. However, the physical evidence from the victim's body contradicted petitioner's story. The trajectory of the bullets showed the shooting was not done in self-defense. Additionally, the means used, multiple gunshot wounds, were disproportionate to the alleged unlawful aggression of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of homicide and did not act in self-defense.
Ocampo v People (2015) In this case, petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence the first element of self-defense. There was no showing of
PO1 CRISPIN OCAMPO y SANTOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES attack or assault that had placed petitioner’s life in imminent or actual G.R. No. 194129 June 15, 2015 danger. Petitioner’s tale of self-defense is negated by the physical evidence, specifically the trajectory of the bullets that penetrated the Facts: victim’s body. Where the physical evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence On May 27, 2000, petitioner assaulted and use personal violence upon must be upheld. Mario De Luna. Petitioner fired his service firearm against the victim With regard to the second element of self-defense, the Court finds that hitting the latter on the chest and other parts of the body. The wounds the means employed by petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the were the direct and immediate cause of his death. Petitioner pleaded victim's alleged unlawful aggression. The victim suffered multiple not guilty upon arraignment. He admitted to having shot the victim to gunshot wounds in his chest and different parts of his body. Indeed, death, but claimed to have done so in self-defense. In support of this the Advance Information prepared by the investigator of the case claim, defense witness Marita averred that the shooting incident was reveals that there was no mention of either a stabbing incident that precipitated by the victim’s unprovoked knife attack upon accused- happened or a knife that was recovered from the crime scene. Here, appellant. The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of homicide the wounds sustained by the victim clearly show the intent of and upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner to kill and not merely to prevent or repel an attack. petitioner, but modified some of the monetary damages awarded. Hence, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond Issue: reasonable doubt. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt (SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines) Ruling: Yes, the prosecution was able to prove petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Settled is the rule that for self-defense to prosper, the following
requisites must be met: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person engaged in self-defense.