G.R. No. L-39089-90 July 31, 1978
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DOMINADOR PAY-AN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The case involves appellant Dominador Pay-an, a Baguio City policeman, convicted for Murder and Frustrated Homicide. On July 15, 1972, Eduardo Chan was supervising the loading of rice sacks into a truck when appellant and another officer, Celestino Guzman, approached. They questioned the cargo’s load without properly identifying themselves. Eduardo informed his brother, Ernesto Chan, who then confronted the officers at the truck. An argument ensued after appellant seized the cargo receipts. When Ernesto questioned their authority, appellant, apparently irked, suddenly drew his service firearm and shot Ernesto in the leg.
As the wounded Ernesto limped backward with his hands raised, appellant fired again, hitting him in the head and causing his death. Their mother, Arcadia Nacionales, witnessed the shooting and shouted for help. Hearing the commotion, another brother, Benjamin Chan, rushed out carrying a rice scoop. Upon seeing his fallen brother and appellant standing nearby, Benjamin struck appellant with the scoop and then fled. As Benjamin stumbled, appellant shot him in the abdomen, inflicting serious injuries. Appellant claimed self-defense, alleging he was attacked by the Chan brothers armed with knives and a pongki (rice scoop).

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the appellant successfully proved his claim of self-defense to justify the killing of Ernesto Chan and the wounding of Benjamin Chan.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s conviction, rejecting the plea of self-defense. The Court emphasized that self-defense is an affirmative allegation; the burden of proof rests solely on the accused who must establish its elements by clear and convincing evidence. These elements are: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) lack of sufficient provocation from the defender; and (3) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression.
The Court found appellant’s evidence utterly insufficient to meet this burden. His testimony, corroborated only by a witness deemed “tutored” and “incoherent” by the trial court, was illogical and unbelievable. The narrative that reputable, unarmed businessmen would suddenly attack two armed policemen without any provocation defied credence. No deadly weapons were presented to substantiate the claim of an armed attack. In contrast, the prosecution evidence clearly established that appellant was the unlawful aggressor. The sudden, successive shooting of an unarmed and retreating Ernesto Chan, who had his hands raised, constituted treachery (alevosia), qualifying the crime as Murder. The shooting of Benjamin, who was fleeing after a non-lethal blow with a wooden scoop, further negated any claim of necessary defense. Since appellant admitted the infliction of the fatal injuries, he could not rely on the prosecution’s weakness but was obliged to prove his justification conclusively, which he failed to do.