G.R. No. 109644 July 21, 1994
ZETINO CANTOS Y DESULOC, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PARAÑAQUE, M.M., and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Zetino Cantos was charged with two counts of homicide for the deaths of Maximo Agapito and Venancio Propeta, and two counts of attempted homicide against Roberto Mabon and Orlando Hinto. The incident occurred on June 22, 1990, at a construction site in Putatan, Muntinlupa. The prosecution’s version, based on eyewitness testimonies including those of the injured victims Mabon and Hinto, was that Cantos arrived at the workers’ barracks where the victims were drinking, uttered invectives (“Putang ina ninyo”), and when questioned, pulled out a knife and stabbed Propeta and Agapito. When Mabon and Hinto tried to pacify him, he also stabbed them. Cantos claimed self-defense, testifying that he had scolded his children using the same phrase, and while washing his hands at a faucet, he was suddenly surrounded and stabbed from behind by Propeta and Agapito. He claimed he wrestled a knife from one of them and stabbed the victims in defense. The trial court convicted Cantos, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that the essential elements of self-defense—unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation—must concur. The petitioner failed to prove unlawful aggression. The trial court found the prosecution’s version more credible, noting that if the petitioner’s version were true—that five armed men attacked him while his back was turned—he could have been easily subdued, not the other way around. The court also found that the petitioner’s utterance of invectives, which he claimed were directed at his children, was likely the provocation for the confrontation. The petitioner’s claim of having been stabbed first was weakened by the location of his wounds (at the back) which, according to the trial court, could have been inflicted during the scuffle and not necessarily as an initial aggressive act. The findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive on the Supreme Court. The burden of proof to establish self-defense lies with the accused, and petitioner failed to discharge this burden by clear and convincing evidence.