A careful and deeper examination of the facts and

circumstances tend to contradict the accused-appellant's

version of the incident and his claim that he acted in self-
defense. Hence, this Court finds for the conviction of the
accused.

A person invoking self-defense admits to having inflicted

harm upon another person - a potential criminal act under
Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of the Revised Penal Code.
However, he or she makes the additional, defensive contention
that even as he or she may have inflicted harm, he or she
nevertheless incurred no criminal liability as the looming
danger upon his or her own person justified the infliction of
protective harm to an erstwhile aggressor.1

The accused's admission enables the prosecution to

dispense with discharging its burden of proving that the
accused performed acts, which would otherwise be the basis of
criminal liability. All that remains to be established is whether
the accused were justified in acting as he or she did. To this
end, the accused's case must rise on its own merits:

It is settled that when an accused admits [harming] the

victim but invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the
accused assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible,
clear and convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would
follow from his admission that he [harmed] the victim. Self-
defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated
by independent and competent evidence or when it is
extremely doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self-defense,
the burden of evidence is shifted, and the accused claiming
self-defense must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of the prosecution. 2

It bears stressing that self-defense, like alibi, is an

inherently weak defense for it is easy to fabricate. Thus, it
must be proven by satisfactory and convincing evidence that
1Velasquez vs. People, G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017.
2 Id.
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the
person invoking it. The following elements must thus be
proved by clear and convincing evidence, to wit: (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.3

The first requisite - unlawful aggression - is the condition

sine qua non of self-defense and defense of a relative:

At the heart of the claim of self-defense is the presence of

an unlawful aggression committed against appellant. Without
unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand
on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be
appreciated, even if the other elements are present. Unlawful
aggression refers to an attack amounting to actual or
imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming
self-defense.4

Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material

unlawful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression.
Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with
physical force or with a weapon, an offensive act that
positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the
injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack that is
impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in
a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary,
but must be offensive and positively strong. 5

Accused claims that private complainant suddenly

attacked him by swinging an empty bottle which if he was not
able to avoid will inflict injury to his person. 6 Unlawful
aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat to
attack or inflict physical injury upon a person. A mere

3 People vs. Cosgafa, G.R. No. 218250, July 10, 2017.

4 People vs. Caratao,, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003.
5 People vs. Manzano Jr., G.R. No. 217974, March 05, 2018.
6 Judicial Affidavit, record at P51.
threatening or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful
aggression, unless the threat is offensive and menacing,
manifestly showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. There
must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent
danger thereof, which puts the defendant’s life in real peril. 7

The Court is not convinced that swinging an empty bottle

of beer would inflict physical injury to the complainant,
especially considering that the bottle was not broken.

The second requisite - reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel the aggression - requires a
reasonable proportionality between the unlawful aggression
and the defensive response: "[t]he means employed by the
person invoking self-defense contemplates a rational
equivalence between the means of attack and the defense." 8
This is a matter that depends on the circumstances:

Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not

imply material commensurability between the means of attack
and defense. What the law requires is rational equivalence, in
the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the
emergency, the imminent danger to which the person attacked
is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves
or impels the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does
not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent
danger of such injury9 ... As the Supreme Court stated in the
case of People vs. Lara, in emergencies of this kind, human
nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation; and when it is
apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this
instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and
hold the act irresponsible in law for the consequences. 10

7 Manaban vs. CA, G.R. No. 150723, July 11, 2006.

8 People vs. Obordo, G.R. No. 139528, May 9, 2002.
9 People vs. Comienda, G.R. No. L-26750 August 18, 1972.
10 People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 24014, October 16, 1925.
 It must be noted that the testimony of the accused in his
counter-affidavit negates the presence of the second requisite
of self-defense which is reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the impeding harm to wit:

“To clarify the matter, the Private

Complainant is a bit short of my height
and if I will intentionally inflict harm on
his person, the injuries that he might
sustain will be more vexing.”11

The fact that the accused is taller than the

complainant and that the bottle of beer is not
broken,

11 Counter-Affidavit, record at P16.