G.R. Nos. 77930-31 February 9, 1989
JEREMIAS EBAJAN, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jeremias Ebajan, a PC Constable, was charged with two counts of homicide for the deaths of Arturo Lubrico and Emeterio Rodas, Jr. on January 20, 1982, at the Holiday Mart in Dumaguete City. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses Eusebio Cruz and Leoncio Cruz. Eusebio testified that he, the victims, and Ebajan were drinking together. Ebajan later invited Lubrico to the comfort room. Eusebio followed and found Lubrico in his briefs, with Ebajan holding a mop. After being led outside by his brother Leoncio, Eusebio heard two gunshots. Leoncio corroborated this, adding that he peered inside after the shots and saw Lubrico falling. The defense, however, presented a starkly different version. Ebajan claimed he acted in self-defense. He alleged that Lubrico attacked him with a water pipe inside the comfort room, prompting him to draw his service firearm. A struggle ensued, and Rodas, who was outside, fired a shot at him. Ebajan stated he was forced to fire back, resulting in both victims’ deaths.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction, thereby rejecting Ebajan’s claim of self-defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, upholding the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that self-defense is an affirmative allegation; the burden of proof rests solely on the accused to prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence. The accused cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution’s case but must establish his defense on the strength of his own evidence. Here, the Court found Ebajan’s evidence for self-defense “hardly persuasive” and uncorroborated. His narrative was deemed extremely doubtful, particularly due to his failure to present the alleged weapons—the water pipe and Rodas’s gun—as evidence. By admitting the killings but failing to satisfactorily prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense, his criminal liability was established. The Court also agreed with the appellate court’s modification of the penalty, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, as Ebajan surrendered to his commanding officer before arrest. Consequently, the penalty for each homicide was reduced to the minimum period of reclusion temporal, and the civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00 per victim, while the award for attorney’s fees was correctly deleted for lack of legal basis in the criminal action.