G.R. No. 129389; October 17, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TEODORICO UBALDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 27, 1988, during wedding preparations at the Ventura residence, an intoxicated Norberto Cabot repeatedly caused disturbances. Barangay Kagawad Reynaldo Ventura sought the assistance of Barangay Captain Teodorico Ubaldo, the appellant, to pacify Cabot. Upon arrival, Ubaldo proceeded alone to the kitchen where Cabot was shouting. Prosecution witness Basilia Cabot testified that Ubaldo shot her brother, Norberto, three times from behind at close range. Ubaldo then fled the scene. The autopsy confirmed the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Ubaldo of Homicide, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with the modification of crediting one mitigating circumstance. Ubaldo appealed, claiming self-defense. He testified that the victim pulled out a gun and fired at him first, forcing him to retaliate. The trial courts, however, found his version unconvincing and noted his immediate flight after the incident.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction for Homicide and rejecting the appellant’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court meticulously applied the legal principles governing self-defense. When an accused invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Ubaldo’s claim of unlawful aggression—that the victim first drew and fired a gun—incredible. No such gun was recovered from the victim, and the testimony of the eyewitness, who had no motive to falsely testify, directly contradicted Ubaldo’s narrative by stating the shooting was from behind.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the physical evidence and the number of gunshot wounds inflicted negated the reasonable necessity of the means used. The act of firing three shots at close range, including to the nape, was excessive. Critically, Ubaldo’s conduct after the incident—his immediate flight and failure to report to authorities—was inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent person acting in self-defense. Flight is considered an indication of guilt and contradicts such a plea. Consequently, the prosecution successfully proved the elements of Homicide beyond reasonable doubt. The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation from the victim’s tumultuous behavior was correctly appreciated, justifying the imposed indeterminate penalty.