G.R. No. 113782 August 14, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO ALIVIADO y CORDOVA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that in the early morning of October 17, 1986, in Manila, appellant Mario Aliviado approached Ramon Akil and his family outside their apartment, inquiring about a certain “Boy Tisoy.” Ramon Akil obliged Aliviado’s request to accompany him to a nearby alley. Erwin Akil, Ramon’s son, followed and later heard a gunshot. He turned to see Aliviado shoot his father from behind, causing him to fall into a canal. Aliviado fled but later returned on a motorcycle and shot barangay tanod Jaime Abejo, who was assisting the wounded Ramon. Ramon Akil died from his injuries, while Jaime Abejo survived due to timely medical intervention.
The appellant interposed self-defense, claiming he was attacked by a group of drunk men while on his way to his wife’s residence. He testified that one man struck him and another pulled a gun, uttering a death threat. In fear, he allegedly grabbed the gun and fired at his assailants before fleeing. He argued he did not surrender immediately upon his wife’s advice, as she warned him the victims had influential relatives in law enforcement.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the appellant’s claim of self-defense is credible and sufficient to exculpate him from the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting the plea of self-defense. The legal logic is anchored on the settled principle that an accused who invokes self-defense admits to the killing and assumes the burden of proving its justifying circumstances by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found the appellant’s version inherently improbable and inconsistent with human experience. His claim of being attacked by a group, yet managing to disarm one assailant and shoot multiple individuals without sustaining any injury himself, strains credulity. Furthermore, his flight and failure to report the incident to authorities immediately thereafter are indicia of guilt, contrary to the behavior of an innocent person acting in self-preservation. The prosecution evidence, including the eyewitness account of Erwin Akil detailing a treacherous attack from behind, firmly established the qualifying circumstance of treachery for murder. The Court also modified the damages, awarding moral damages to Jaime Abejo for the physical suffering and mental anguish caused by the frustrated murder, exercising its discretionary power on review.