Thursday, January 2, 2014

When the accused admits killing the victim, but invokes a justifying circumstance, the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived and the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance shifts to the accused.

"x x x.

To add, neither can the dismissal of the murder charge against Dangupon be sustained in view of his presumption of innocence. Jurisprudence holds that when the accused admits killing the victim, but invokes a justifying circumstance, the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived and the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance shifts to the accused.50 The rule regarding an accused’s admission of the victim’s killing has been articulated in Ortega v. Sandiganbayan, to wit:51

Well settled is the rule that where the accused had admitted that he is the author of the death of the victim and his defense anchored on selfdefense, it is incumbent upon him to prove this justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused himself had admitted the killing. The burden is upon the accused to prove clearly and sufficiently the elements of self-defense, being an affirmative allegation, otherwise the conviction of the accused is inescapable.52 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Therefore, due to the ostensible presence of the crime charged and considering that Dangupon’s theories of self-defense/defense of a stranger and lawful performance of one’s duty and the argument on presumption of innocence are, under the circumstances, not compelling enough to overcome a finding of probable cause, the Court finds that the DOJ gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case against Dangupon. Consequently, the reversal of the CA ruling with respect to the latter is in order.

x x x."