G.R. No. 140544 , December 7, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELMER DAMITAN Y MANTAWEL, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Elmer Damitan, was charged with Murder for stabbing Leon Cahapon, Sr. to death on April 27, 1998, in Quezon, Bukidnon. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses, including Conrado Sumin-ao and the victim’s grandson, Junine Cahapon. They testified that while the victim was fixing a horse’s rope, Damitan suddenly approached and stabbed him twice with a hunting knife. The first stab hit the victim’s right breast while he was standing, and the second struck him as he lay on the ground. The defense consisted solely of Damitan’s testimony. He admitted the killing but claimed self-defense. He alleged that the victim had previously threatened him over a dispute about chickens and that on the morning of the incident, the victim attacked him at his house, boxed him, attempted to stab him, and choked him. Damitan claimed he wrestled the knife away and, while being choked, unconsciously stabbed the victim.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the accused successfully proved his claim of self-defense to absolve him of criminal liability for the killing.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, upholding the trial court’s rejection of the self-defense plea. The Court meticulously applied the legal principle that when an accused admits the killing and invokes self-defense, the burden of proof shifts to him to establish by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of its essential elements: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court found Damitan’s account inherently weak and improbable. His claim that he was attacked, disarmed his aggressor, and then stabbed the victim while being choked from a prone position was inconsistent with the location, number, and nature of the wounds as described by credible eyewitnesses. The prosecution witnesses consistently testified to a sudden, unprovoked attack from behind, with the victim stabbed while standing and then again while defenseless on the ground. This sequence indicated treachery, qualifying the killing to Murder. The Court emphasized that in self-defense, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, not the weakness of the prosecution’s. Damitan’s uncorroborated testimony failed to meet this standard. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and moral damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs.