G.R. No. 190861
"x x x.
It is a hornbook doctrine that when self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the appellant to prove the elements of that claim,[14] i.e., (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, (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.[15] But absent the essential element of unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense.[16]
In the present case, the appellant failed to prove the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. As correctly observed and ruled by the trial court:
From the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, Dante Largado, Jr. and Alex Davocol, the unarmed victim was being chased by the accused, armed with a long bolo, and upon catching up [with] the victim, the accused hacked the victim, hitting him on the left side of his face and ear, cutting major blood vessels, which caused the death of the victim instantaneously.
Even assuming arguendo that there was provocation on the part of the unarmed victim who immediately thereafter ran away, such provocation is not sufficient to be repelled with the use of a long bolo. The defense of self-defense by the accused cannot be appreciated by the Court, for not having been substantiated by clear and convincing evidence that the killing of Dante Largado, Sr. was justified, hence, must fail.[17] (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is wanting. It must be remembered that the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution for, even if the prosecution evidence is weak, it cannot be disbelieved after the accused himself has admitted the killing.[18]
Moreover, the question of whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact.[19] Thus, in the absence of proof that the CA and the trial court failed to appreciate facts or circumstances that would have merited appellant's acquittal, this Court has no reason whatsoever to disturb the ruling of the CA and the trial court.
x x x."
