G.R. Nos. 129964-65 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CARLOS MENEQUE Y MONTON, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, imposed upon him the penalty of for each of the murders and ordered him to pay the heirs of each of the victims P50,000.00 as indemnity. [30] In ruling thus, the trial court considered the witnesses of the prosecution to be more credible than those of the defense. With regards to accused's plea of self-defense, the trial court held that accused had failed to prove the same with clear and convincing evidence. Meanwhile, Rogelio de Jose's testimony was considered as "weak, illogical and incoherent." Also, the trial court found that the killings were committed with treachery since "the victims Mario Aguilar and Ricardo Cabarang were not in [a] position to defend themselves when the accused unexpectedly fired his M-14." [31] The sole issue raised by accused in his appeal is whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not appreciating the justifying circumstance of self-defense in his favor. [32] A plea of self-defense automatically shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense since such a plea means that the accused admits to having performed the criminal act, but disclaims legal liability on the ground that his life had been exposed to harm first before he committed the act in defense of himself. [33] Thus, when the accused invokes self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused's open admission of responsibility for the killing. [34] The requisites in order for self-defense to be appreciated as a justifying circumstance are: (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. [35] The accused must prove the existence of all of these elements by clear and convincing evidence. [36] In the present case, accused-appellant claims that he was merely having a conversation with the group of Aguilar, who invited him in the first place, when they insulted him; that when he stood up to leave, they assaulted him and two persons tried to grab his firearm; that he was able to retain possession of his gun and to run away from the group; and that as he was scampering away, the group of Aguilar fired upon him, so he fired back. [37] We cannot give credence to accused-appellant's version of events. Apart from his own self-serving statements, accused-appellant's testimony is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence. [38] We agree with the trial court that the testimony of Rogelio de Jose, the only other witness for the defense, was weak and untenable. On direct examination, de Jose claimed that he witnessed the fighting between accused-appellant and some men inside the store which accused-appellant had entered. However, on cross-examination, de Jose admitted that he could not see inside the store. [39] De Jose's contradic