THE CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Otherwise,
Self-defense as a justifying circumstance
under Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, implies the
admission by the accused that he
committed the acts that would have
been criminal in character had it not
been for the presence of circumstances
whose legal consequences negate the
commission of a crime. (Sabay v. People,
G.R. No. 192150, [October 1, 2014], 744
PHIL 760-774)
The plea of self-defense in order to
exculpate the accused must be duly
proven. The most basic rule is that
no self-defense can be recognized until
unlawful aggression is
established. (Sabay v. People, G.R. No.
192150, [October 1, 2014], 744 PHIL
760-774)
When the accused interposes self-
defense, he must prove that:
(1) he was not the unlawful aggressor;
(2) there was lack of sufficient
provocation on his part; and
(3) he employed reasonable means to
prevent or repel the aggression.
Although all these elements must
concur, self-defense is perched in proof
of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. (People v. Santos y Santos, G.R.
No. 232244 (Notice), [June 19, 2019])
To support the accused's claim of self-
defense, he must prove the following
elements by clear and convincing
evidence:
1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack;
and
3. The person defending himself must
not have provoked the victim into
committing the act of aggression. When
an accused admits killing the victim but
invokes self-defense to escape criminal
liability, he assumes the burden of
proving his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence.
conviction would necessarily follow from
his admission that he killed the victim.
(People v. Atadero, G.R. Nos. 135239-
40, [August 12, 2002], 435 PHIL 887-
905)
A plea of self-defense is belied by the
nature, number, and location of the
wounds inflicted on the victim since the
gravity of said wounds is indicative of a
determined effort to kill and not just to
defend. (People v. Santos y Santos, G.R.
No. 232244 (Notice), [June 19, 2019])
The accused claiming self-defense must
rely on the strength of his own evidence
and not on the weakness of the
prosecution. Self-defense cannot be
justifiably appreciated when
uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence, or when it is
extremely doubtful by itself. (Casilac v.
People, G.R. No. 238436, [February 17,
2020])
While all three elements must concur,
first and foremost self-defense relies on
proof of unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim. If no unlawful aggression
is proved, no self-defense may be
successfully pleaded. Unlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua
non for upholding the justifying
circumstance of self-defense; if there is
nothing to prevent or repel, the other
two requisites of self-defense will have
no basis. (Casilac v. People, G.R. No.
238436, [February 17, 2020])