THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN R.

DECENA, accused-appellant.
[G.R. No. 131843. May 31, 2000]
Facts:

On Christmas day, around 4pm, Luzviminda (14 y.o., daughter of the Jaime
Ballesteros, victim), saw Decena rushing towards her father with a long bladed weapon
prompting her to warn her father.
Decena, however, stabbed him on the right chest causing his death.
Narration of the defense:
At about 4pm, the victim was drunk and for no apparent reason, he held
the appellant by the neck and poked a fork against it. A barangay tanod intervened and
advised the appellant to go home. Appellant left but was later followed by Jaime (victim).
Biala, uncle of the appellant, testified that he saw Jaime attacking the
appellant with a balisong. Appellant was able to parry the blow, and overpowering Jaime,
thruste the knife into his body.
Issue:
W/N the appellant acted in complete self-defense that in killing Jaime Ballesteros
absolving him from criminal liability.
Held:
No.

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution which may rely on the
strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. However, upon invoking
self-defense, the accused admits that he killed the victim and the burden of proof is upon
him in proving that he really acted in self-defense.
Basic requirement for self-defense as a justifying circumstance is unlawful
aggression against the person defending himself.
It must be shown that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked
attack that placed the life of the accused in danger forcing him to inflict wounds upon his
assailant
According to the defense, the unlawful aggression started when the victim
started poking the appellant with a fork
Elementary rule: when the aggressor leaves, the aggression
ceases. It follows that when appellant and Jaime heeded the advice of the barangay
tanod, the unlawful aggression had ended. Since the aggression no longer existed,
appellant had no right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
The defense failed to establish that the victim persisted in his design
to attack the appellant
Defense: continuing aggression
Whenever the victim was drunk, he would look for trouble (refuted by the
testimony of the wife)
Witnesses: Jaime was staggering or wobbling as he walked the victim
could not have persisted in attacking the appellant with his current state.

Testimony of the uncle: imaginative or coached witness