G.R. No. 148724 ; October 15, 2002
People of the Philippines, appellee, vs. Domingo Arnante y Dacpano, appellant.

FACTS

On July 16, 2000, at their residence in Iriga City, Domingo Arnante, his father Valentin Arnante, and other relatives were celebrating the birthday of Domingo’s brother, Christopher. After lunch, the group drank in the living room. By around six in the evening, Valentin and Domingo, both drunk, engaged in a heated argument. Domingo told his father to stop embarrassing him in front of the guests, but Valentin persisted. Feeling ignored, Domingo stood up, went to his room followed by Christopher, and took a handgun. Domingo fired the gun towards the ground, causing the people in the house to rush out. Domingo exited through the kitchen door, and his father followed him. Domingo then shot his father twice. Valentin was brought to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival. Domingo was charged with parricide. During trial, Domingo admitted shooting his father but claimed self-defense, alleging that his father followed him while carrying a bolo and threatened to hack him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Domingo of parricide, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity. The court rejected the plea of self-defense but appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant despite his claim that he acted in legitimate self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The claim of self-defense is untenable. When an accused admits killing the victim but invokes self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon him to establish the plea by credible, clear, and convincing evidence. For self-defense to prevail, three conditions must concur: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression requires an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger to life and limb, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. The testimony of appellant himself negated any showing of unlawful aggression. He stated that his father was scolding him and, later outside the house, was carrying a bolo and threatening to hack him. However, nothing in his account demonstrated an actual attack, only a perceived threat. A mere perception of an impending attack or an intimidating attitude is insufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For the crime of parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The attendance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender justified the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court modified the civil liabilities, ordering appellant to pay, in addition to the P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was affirmed with modification.