PEOPLE vs BELBES (Criminal Law Review 1)

G.R. No. 124670               June 21, 2000

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned to maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School, Pili, Bacacay, Albay.

Fernando and some companions are reported to them as making some trouble. 

Appellant testified that upon responding to the report of two students, he and Patrolman Pabon, saw Fernando Bataller destroying the bamboo wall of the school's temporary building. Fernando appeared to be drunk and a little bit tipsy. They approached Fernando and identified themselves as policemen but the former ignored them. Instead, Fernando lunged with a knife at Patrolman Pabon but the latter avoided the thrust. Afterwards, Fernando also stabbed the appellant and hit his left shoulder. As another thrust was coming, appellant claims he fired a warning shot. Fernando grabbed the armalite and they struggled until the gun went off hitting Fernando, according to appellant.

ISSUE:

Whether he cannot be held criminally liable because of self defense.

RULING:

No, the self defense is in question on this case. First, why was the knife allegedly used by the deceased mishandled? It was not even subjected to fingerprinting. Second, why was the wound on appellant's shoulder medically examined only after the lapse of more than twenty-one hours? Was it possibly self-inflicted? According to the doctor who examined him, Dr. Evelyn Amador, it was a possibility. Lastly, as observed by the trial court, if it was true that they grappled face to face with each other, why was the victim hit sideways, as testified to by Amador?

The time factor here appears significant. Mrs. Mila Ulanca testified that it only took about six seconds from the time Patrolman Belbes left his seat until she heard the burst of gunshots. This testimony is not contradicted or rebutted.

Thus, appellant's claim of self-defense could not prosper.

To prove self-defense, the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence, that: (1) he is 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. Self-defense, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be concocted. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it was incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, "for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing."