G.R. No. 147764; January 16, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO CUETO y CUETO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Danilo Cueto y Cueto was charged with Murder for shooting and killing Eduardo Andal y Martinez on July 16, 1997, in Manila. The prosecution’s version, as credited by the trial court, established that the accused and the victim were neighbors. A few days prior, the victim was tasked to serve a summons on the accused for a gun-toting complaint, which the accused resented. On the night of the incident, the victim went out to check the flooded street. Upon reaching a street corner, the accused accosted the victim from behind, uttered an invective, and then shot him on the upper left thigh. The victim’s son attempted to confront the accused but was threatened with the gun. The victim later died in the hospital from the gunshot wound. The accused went into hiding for two years until he was accidentally seen and arrested by the victim’s widow.
The accused interposed self-defense, claiming that the victim, who was drunk, knocked on his door shouting invectives. A confrontation and heated argument ensued, during which the victim drew a gun. The accused grappled for the gun, and it accidentally fired, hitting the victim. Fearing revenge, the accused moved his family and hid.
The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused of Murder, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay damages. The accused appealed, raising multiple errors including the trial court’s rejection of his self-defense claim, issues of witness credibility, and alleged violations of due process.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the accused-appellant successfully proved his claim of self-defense to avoid criminal liability for the killing of Eduardo Andal.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction for Murder with MODIFICATIONS to the damages awarded. The Court ruled that the accused-appellant failed to prove self-defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court reiterated that when an accused admits to the killing and pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him to prove: (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. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element.
The Court found that the accused-appellant failed to establish unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The arguments he raised—that the victim was drunk, the bullet’s downward trajectory suggested a scuffle, the incident happened in front of his house, and that the victim had a firearm license—did not constitute clear proof that the victim was the aggressor. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that the victim was unarmed and unaware of the impending attack.
The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that contradictions between sworn statements and court testimonies are not unusual and that open court declarations take precedence. The trial court’s unique position to observe witness demeanor is accorded great respect.
The Court also found that the accused-appellant’s flight and hiding for two years were indicative of guilt and inconsistent with a claim of justifiable killing.
Regarding damages, the Court affirmed the P50,000.00 civil indemnity, increased the actual damages to P50,500.00 (from P10,500.00) based on substantiated receipts, and reduced the moral damages from P400,000.00 to P50,000.00, deeming the original award excessive.