"x x x.
In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the following elements: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.20 On the other hand, the requisites of defense of strangers are, namely: (a) unlawful aggression by the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (c) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.21
In self-defense and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression is a primordial element, a conditionsine qua non. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, self-defense and defense of strangers are unavailing, because there would be nothing to repel.22 The character of the element of unlawful aggression has been aptly described in People v. Nugas,23 as follows:
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.
By invoking self-defense and defense of strangers, Arnold and Joven in effect admitted their parts in killing the victims. The rule consistently adhered to in this jurisdiction is that when the accused’s defense is self-defense he thereby admits being the author of the death of the victim, that it becomes incumbent upon him to prove the justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court.24 The rationale for the shifting of the burden of evidence is that the accused, by his admission, is to be held criminally liable unless he satisfactorily establishes the fact of self-defense. But the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not thereby lifted from the shoulders of the State, which carries it until the end of the proceedings. In other words, only the onus probandi shifts to the accused, for self-defense is an affirmative allegation that must be established with certainty by sufficient and satisfactory proof.25 He must now discharge the burden by relying on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of that of the Prosecution, considering that the Prosecution’s evidence, even if weak, cannot be disbelieved in view of his admission of the killing.26
Arnold and Joven did not discharge their burden."
Arnold and Joven did not adequately prove unlawful aggression; hence, neither self-defense nor defense of stranger was a viable defense for them. We note that in addition to the eyewitness account of Perfinian directly incriminating them, their own actuations immediately after the incident confirmed their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As the CA cogently noted,27 their flight from the neighborhood where the crimes were committed, their concealing of the weapons used in the commission of the crimes, their non-reporting of the crimes to the police, and their failure to surrender themselves to the police authorities fully warranted the RTC’s rejection of their claim of self-defense and defense of stranger.
Winifreda’s testimonial claim that the victims were the aggressors deserves no consideration. Her story was that one of the victims had tried to attack her with a balisong.28 Yet, her story would not stand scrutiny because of the fact that no such weapon had been recovered from the crime scene; and because of the fact that none of the accused had substantiated her thereon. Neither Arnold nor Joven attested in court seeing any of the victims holding any weapon.29
Nonetheless, even if we were to believe Arnold and Joven’s version of the incident, the element of unlawful aggression by the victims would still be lacking. The allegation that one of the victims had held Winifreda’s hand did not indicate that the act had gravely endangered Winifreda’s life. Similarly, the victims’ supposed motion to draw something from their waists did not put Arnold and Joven’s lives in any actual or imminent danger. What the records inform us is that Arnold and Joven did not actually see if the victims had any weapons to draw from their waists. That no weapons belonging to the victims were recovered from the crime scene confirmed their being unarmed. Lastly, had they been only defending themselves, Arnold and Joven did not tell the trial court why they had repeatedly hacked their victims with their bolos; or why they did not themselves even sustain any physical injury. Thus, the CA and the RTC rightly rejected their plea of self-defense and defense of stranger, for the nature and the number of wounds sustained by the victims were important indicia to disprove self-defense.30
