G.R. No. 119591 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DANILO BALAMBAN Y ALCANTARA AND RUDY BALAMBAN, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

Accordingly, the prosecutions theory -- that he hacked the victim after picking up the bolo Danilo had dropped -- is untenable in light of Venerando Tejadas testimony that Rudy "kept distance" when Danilo hacked Sonny Solo and that the latter suffered only one hack wound on the neck. Moreover, Rudy went to the scene of the crime only after having been informed by Salvador Tawat that Danilo was stabbed. As to the fourth and fifth assigned errors which they discuss together, the accused-appellants have nothing substantial to add except to reiterate their claim that their evidence is more credible and should be given full faith. At bottom, they want this Court to believe that Danilo acted in complete self-defense and that Rudy was not present during the incident. The Office of the Solicitor General is not persuaded. In its Brief for the Appellee, it characterizes as "bereft of merit," "specious," and "devoid of merit," respectively, the accused-appellants arguments in support of the first and second assigned errors, the third assigned error as to the claim that the deceased sustained only one wound, and of the fourth and fifth assigned errors. It submits that the judgment appealed from is in accordance with law and the evidence and prays for its affirmance in toto. The accused-appellants did not file a Reply Brief. In essence, at issue is the credibility of the witnesses of the parties. On this score, it is doctrinally settled that appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court because of the latters distinct advantage of having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying or conduct and behavior during the trial. [22] The recognized exceptions to this rule are where the record shows that facts and circumstances of weight and influence have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied by the trial court which, if considered, would have affected the result of the case; [23] and when such findings are arbitrary. [24] We find no room to apply any of the exceptions. The issues raised before us are no longer formidable in view of the admission of accused-appellant Danilo Balamban that he killed Sonny Solo in complete self-defense and the defense of alibi by accused-appellant Rudy Balamban. This Court has been unbending in its rule that where the accused admits to the killing of the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. As the burden of the evidence is thus shifted to him, he must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the latter were weak, it would not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. [25] The evidence required of him must prove with certainty the elements of self-defense and must exclude any vestige of criminal aggression on his part. [26] The elements or requisites of self-