Case Digest: People Delos Santos, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014

                       Rule 115: Rights of the Accused  | Criminal Procedure

                     Presumption of Innocence (Self-defense)

Facts:

Alex delos Santos was convicted for murder of Fernando A. Catriz and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

With a long bolo and rambo knife, Delos Santos attacked Catriz inflicting multiple hack wounds on different parts of his body, leading to his death.

Reynaldo Bayudan, the victim's nephew and eyewitness, testified that the accused-appellant hacked Catriz from behind, causing him to flee. The accused-appellant pursued Catriz, stabbed him repeatedly, and ignored Catriz's pleas for his life. The accused-appellant then exclaimed, "Happy New Year, natayen ni Ferdie!" (Happy New Year, Ferdie is dead!).

A post-mortem examination determined that Catriz sustained 11 stab wounds, including fatal ones to the heart area, resulting in hypovolemic shock and death.

The defense presented the testimony of the accused-appellant and his uncle. They claimed that Catriz had instigated the confrontation and attempted to attack the accused-appellant with a bolo. The accused-appellant defended himself using a knife, but he did not remember the exact number of times he stabbed Catriz.

The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of murder, rejecting his claim of self-defense. The court ruled that treachery was present in the attack as Catriz was defenseless and begging for his life while the accused-appellant continued to stab him.

Issue:

WON the trial court gravely erred in not giving credence to his claim of self-defense.

Held:  NO. 

EFFECT OF PLEA OF SELF-DEFENSE.—

Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. However, if the accused admits killing the victim, but pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part.

Self-defense, when invoked, as a justifying circumstance implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act.

Thus, to escape criminal liability, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), viz: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, that can validly be invoked.

Here, the accused-appellant failed to prove that unlawful aggression was initiated by Catriz. The physical evidence of Catriz’s incised wound on the left scapula belies the version of  events adduced by the defense and is more consistent with the narration of the prosecution’s eyewitness Bayudan – that the initial blow came from the accused-appellant who suddenly emerged behind Catriz and hacked him. The testimony of expert witness Dr. Yuaga further confirmed that such incised wound could have been inflicted from behind. Further, the location, the number and gravity of the wounds inflicted on Catriz indicate a determined effort to kill and not merely to defend. It has been repeatedly ruled that the nature, number and location of the wounds sustained by the victim disprove a plea of self-defense.