G.R. No. 195021 March 15, 2017
NICOLAS VELASQUEZ and VICTOR VELASQUEZ, Petitioners vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS

Petitioners Nicolas and Victor Velasquez, along with others, were charged with Attempted Murder for the mauling of Jesus Del Mundo on May 24, 2003. The prosecution alleged that after Jesus discovered a couple having sex in his nipa hut and shouted at them, he was later waylaid by the accused group. Petitioners Nicolas and Victor were specifically accused of hitting Jesus on the head with stones, causing a depressed skull fracture and other injuries. An eyewitness, Maria Teresita Viado, testified to seeing the attack under the illumination of a nearby lamp post.
The defense presented a different account, claiming justification under self-defense and defense of relatives. They asserted that Jesus, allegedly drunk and aggressive, first hacked at Victor Velasquez’s door and attacked the petitioners and others. They contended that their actions were merely a collective response to repel Jesus’s unlawful aggression.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioners’ conviction for Attempted Murder, specifically in rejecting their claim of justifying circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court emphasized that an accused who invokes a justifying circumstance like self-defense admits to the act but claims legal justification, thereby assuming the burden of proof. For self-defense to prosper, the accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation.
The Court found that the petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The evidence did not substantiate their claim of unlawful aggression initiated by Jesus. The trial court’s findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, credited the consistent and credible testimony of the prosecution eyewitness over the defense’s version. The nature, location, and severity of Jesus’s injuries—particularly the stone-inflicted head wounds causing a skull fracture—were incompatible with a mere defensive response and instead indicated a determined assault. The justifying circumstance of defense of a relative was also unavailing, as no clear and imminent danger to a relative was established to warrant the violent retaliation. Consequently, with the justifying circumstances unproven, the admission inherent in their plea left the prosecution’s evidence of the felonious act, committed with intent to kill and treachery, sufficient to sustain the conviction for Attempted Murder.