Self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Likewise, the fact that the victim initiated the unlawful aggression does not give the person defending an absolute license to kill. Where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, there can be no self-defense. On the other hand, denial and alibi, while inherently weak, assume relevance when the evidence of the prosecution linking the accused to the crime is inconclusive.

x x x 

 

 Appellant Renato Albao admits that he inflicted the injuries which led to the death of the victim, but claims that he “acted in lawful self-defense.”^[13] In view of this admission, the burden of evidence shifts to him. Thus, he must prove the elements of self-defense with clear and convincing evidence.^[14] This he failed to do before the trial court, and now before us.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 117481, March 06, 1998 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE RENATO ALBAO @ JUN AND JOSE ALENO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

==============================================================

Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving and merits no weight in law; it cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who unequivocally testified on affirmative matters.

pEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO CORRE JR., SONNY DE LOS REYES AND ANGELES ARUJADO ALIAS “KILIS,” ACCUSED. REYNALDO CORRE JR., APPELLANT. 

=============================================================

Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND BRIGIDA PALADA,^* PETITIONERS, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

 

=============================================================

Robo con homicido is a special complex crime against property.  Absent clear and convincing evidence that the crime of robbery was perpetrated, and that, on occasion or by reason thereof, a homicide was committed, an accused cannot be found guilty of robbery with homicide, but only homicide, or murder, as the case may be.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN AND JOSE PRECIOSO, ACCUSED.

 

============================================================

The crime of rape is a heinous offense.  Its commission must be established by clear and convincing evidence.  Invariably, the prosecution must rely on the sole testimony of the offended party.  If her version proves to be weak if not credible, then the conviction for the offense charged cannot follow

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO TEODOSIO Y CARREON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

===============================================================

Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,^* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS,^** ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

==============================================================

In order that self-defense may totally exculpate an accused from criminal liability, he must prove with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of his chosen defense. As he has admitted to the killing, the accused must thus rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s. However, we agree with the Solicitor General’s recommendation that the accused should be held guilty only of homicide, not murder, because the prosecution failed to prove treachery as clearly and as cogently as the killing itself. Hence, the appellant is saved from the penalty of death.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB Y BAGAYAN ALIAS BENJIE CAYABYAB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

===============================================================

To justify an award for moral and exemplary damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code (on human relations), the claimants must establish the other party's malice or bad faith by clear and convincing evidence.
 

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION, SPOUSES JONG-WON HONG AND SOO-OK KIM HONG,^* TERESITA CU, AND RICARDO P. GUEVARA AND SPOUSE,^** RESPONDENTS.

 ============================================================