PRACTICE COURT :

When self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused to sho
that the killin! as le!all" #ustified$ (People vs. Conception, 514 SCRA 660).
Criminal law; Self!efense; "lements of Self#efense $
%ike alibi, &etitioner's clai( of self-defense is eak) it is also settled that self-defense is
eas" to fabricate and difficult to dis&rove$ *uch &lea is both a confession and avoidance$
One ho invokes self-defense, co(&lete or inco(&lete, thereb" ad(its havin! killed the
victi( b" inflictin! in#uries on hi($ The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to
&rove the confluence of the essential ele(ents for the defense as &rovided in Article 11,
paragraph 1 of the RPC: x x x (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of
the eans eploye! to pre"ent or repel it; an! (#) lac$ of sufficient pro"ocation
on the part of the person !efen!ing hiself% x x x (%artine& vs. Co'rt of Appeals,
April 1(, )00*)
*** The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the evidence of the
prosecution is weak, the same cannot be disbelieved. The accused cannot
escape conviction if he fails to prove the essential elements of complete self-
defense. ***
+nlawf'l A,,ression $
A!!ression, if not continuous, does not constitute a!!ression arrantin! self-defense$
When unlaful a!!ression ceases, the defender no lon!er has an" #ustification to kill or
ound the ori!inal a!!ressor$ The assailant is no lon!er actin! in self-defense but in
retaliation a!ainst the ori!inal a!!ressor$ (%artine& vs. Co'rt of Appeals, April 1(, )00*)
The nature, nu(ber and location of the ounds sustained b" the victi( dis&rove
accused-a&&ellant's clai( of self-defense$ (People vs. A-esamis, A','st )., )00*)
*** In the present case, the supposed unlawful aggression of Waldo ceased
from the moment he turned his back from petitioner; there is no need for
petitioner to shot Waldo twice. nlawful aggression is a sudden and
une!pected attack or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
threatening or an intimidating attitude.
"onsidering the gravity of the in#uries that the accused supposedly sustained,
the victim should also sustain in#uries in his fists as a result of the allegedly
unlawful aggression. The accused version that he received multiple fist blows
from the victim is inconsistent with the findings of the autopsy report
submitted by $r. %lvare& ***
/reac0er1 $
There is treacher" hen the offender co((its an" of the cri(es a!ainst the &erson,
e(&lo"in! (eans, (ethods, or for(s in the e+ecution thereof hich tend directl" and
s&eciall" to insure its e+ecution ithout risk to hi(self arisin! fro( the defense hich the
offended &art" (i!ht take$ In the &resent case, the &rosecution had (et the re,uisites
for alevosia to be a&&reciated: -./ at the ti(e of the attack the victi( as not in a
&osition to defend hi(self) and -0/ that the offender consciousl" ado&ted the &articular
(eans, (ethod, or for( of the attack e(&lo"ed b" hi($ (%artine& vs. Co'rt of Appeals,
April 1(, )00*)
The essence of treacher" is the sudden and une+&ected attack b" the a!!ressor on an
unsus&ectin! victi(, de&rivin! the latter of an" real chance to defend hi(self, thereb"
ensurin! its co((ission ithout risk to the a!!ressor) and ithout the sli!htest
&rovocation on the &art of the victi($ In People vs. 2illone&, )*. SCRA 566 (133.), e
ruled that treacher" (a" still be a&&reciated even hen the victi( as forearned of
dan!er to his &erson$ What is decisive is that the e+ecution of the attack (ade it
i(&ossible for the victi( to defend hi(self or to retaliate$ (People vs. Ro!as, A','st ).,
)00*).
*** If it were true that accused '(mandam) shot Waldo 'victim) merely to
defend himself, it defies reason why he had to shot Waldo twice. $r. %lvare&,
who attended to Waldo, testified that the victim sustained * gunshots which
penetrated his lungs, causing "ardiopulmonary arrest secondary to
pneumohemothira! secondary to gunshot.
The presence of these wounds, their location and their seriousness would not
only negate self-defense; they likewise indicate a determined effort to kill.
+oreover, physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more
elo,uently than a hundred witnesses. ***
2ol'ntar1 S'rren!er
1or voluntar" surrender to be a&&reciated, the folloin! re,uisites should be &resent:
-./ the offender has not been actuall" arrested) -0/ the offender surrendered hi(self to a
&erson in authorit" or the latter's a!ent) and -2/ the surrender as voluntar"$ The
surrender (ust be s&ontaneous, (ade in such a (anner that it shos interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionall" to the authorities either because he acknoled!ed
his !uilt or he ishes to save the( the trouble and e+&enses that ould necessaril" be
incurred in the search and ca&ture$ (%artine& vs. Co'rt of Appeals, April 1(, )00*)
The act of the accused of fleein! fro( the scene of the cri(e instead of re&ortin! the
incident to the &olice authorities are circu(stances hi!hl" indicative of !uilt and ne!ate
his clai( of self-defense$ (People vs. 2illa, 4r., %arc0 )., )00.)

A,,ravatin, Circ'mstances
When the cri(e is co((itted in the dellin! of the offended &art" and the latter has not
!iven &rovocation, dellin! (a" be a&&reciated as an a!!ravatin! circu(stances)
3ellin! is considered the a!!ravatin! &ri(aril" because of the sanctit" of &rivac" the
la accords to hu(an abode$ (People vs /olentino, 546 SCRA 6*1)
555
After shootin! Waldo for the first ti(e, &etitioner as not "et satisfied ith #ust one shot,
so he shot Waldo a!ain, then he i((ediatel" fled$ Accused did not surrendered hi(self
directl" to the &olice authorities but rather he ent first to his residence$ 4e onl"
surrendered hen &olice officers asked hi( to !o to the &olice station$ 1urther(ore, h"
should the accused brin! a !un to the house of Waldo if he has no intention to kill hi($
4is act of fleein! fro( the cri(e scene instead of re&ortin! the incident to the &olice
authorities are circu(stances hi!hl" indicative of !uilt and ne!ate his clai( of self-
defense$