[CR No. 31065. JUNE 23, 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, VS. EVAN BAJA, accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

of the Ruling of the Court

1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A QUESTION OF FACT; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT COMMAND GREAT WEIGHT AND RESPECT UNLESS PATENT INCONSISTENCIES ARE IGNORED OR WHERE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED ARE CLEARLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. -First off, we reverberate the settled doctrine that the issue of whether or not the accused acted in self-defense is undoubtedly a question of fact, and it is well entrenched in jurisprudence that finding s of fact of the trial court command great weight and respect unless patent inconsistencies are ignored or where the conclusions reached are clearly unsupported by evidence. We scoured the records and found no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the court a quo.

2. CRIMINAL LAW; SELF-DEFENSE;

THE REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE; IF NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IS ESTABLISHED, THERE CAN BE NO SELF-DEFENSE, WHETHER COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE.—By invoking self-defense, it became incumbent upon appellant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed had acted in defense of himself. The requisites of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Although all three elements must concur, self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is established, there can be no self-defense,

whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to apply. As an element of self-defense unlawful aggression refers to an assault or attack, or a threat thereof in an imminent and immediate manner, which places the defendant's life in actual peril. There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon. To constitute unlawful aggression, the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb; and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.

3. ID.; ID.; UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; THE MOMENT THE FIRST AGGRESSOR RUNS AWAY, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION ON THE PART OF THE FIRST AGGRESSOR CEASES TO EXIST; AND WHEN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION CEASES, THE DEFENDER NO LONGER HAS ANY RIGHT TO KILL OR WOUND THE FORMER AGGRESSOR.-As it happened, when appellant shot San Andres while moving away from him, there was no more actual danger on appellant's life. Ergo, he had no justifiable reason to fire at San Andres at the back of his head, In the same vein, no unlawful aggression can be attributed to Flores as he was shot twice on his legs by the appellant while about to help San Andres, Ingrained in Our jurisprudence is the doctrine that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed.

4. ID.; ID.; THE LOCATION, NUMBER OR SERIOUSNESS OF THE WOUNDS INFLICTED ON THE VICTIM ARE IMPORTANT INDICIA WHICH MAY DISPROVE ACCUSED'S PLEA OF SELFDEFENSE.-In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court had emphatically held that location, number or seriousness of the wounds inflicted on the victim are important indicia which may disprove accused's plea of self-defense. Here, evidence on record strikingly reveals that the points of entry of the bullets indicate both San Andres and Flores had their backs turned away from appellant when they were shot. The wounds sustained by Flores on both his right and left legs were attested by the medical certificate and testimony of Dr. George Cheng who declared that the points of entry of the bullets on Flores' legs were located at the back or the posterior aspect.

5. REMEDIAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; APPEALS; ONLY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL MAY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES ON APPEAL. It is a shopworn rule that if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may appeal the civil aspect despite the acquittal of the accused.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY; AN ACQUITTAL IS IMMEDIATELY FINAL AND CANNOT BE APPEALED ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS A FINDING OF MISTRIAL RESULTING IN A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. Besides, the acquittal of San Andres can no longer be reviewed by Us as this would constitute a violation of his constitutional right against double jeopardy. It is doctrinally settled that after trial on the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is a finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69.

The facts stated in the Opinion of the Court.

Evastrio B. Urbina for accusedappellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

DIMAAMPAO, J.:

Brought to Us for review is the Decision1 dated 4 June 2007, modified in the Order2 dated 13 June 2007, of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 69, in Criminal Case Nos. 87497 and 87498, convicting accused Evan Baja (BAJA) of the crime of Frustrated Homicide (2 counts), the fallo of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, finding accused Evan Baja guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of two (2) counts of Frustrated Homicide in Crim. Case Nos. 87497-98, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor, as minimum to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum for each case; and to pay actual damages in the amount of ninety-three thousand five hundred four pesos (P93,504.00) to Jaime San Andres a.k.a. Jowie San Andres.

However, accused Jaime San Andres is Acquitted in the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Crim. Case No. 87499.

SO ORDERED."

In two separate Informations3 both dated 26 June 1991, 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Emmanuel Pascual charged BAJA with the crime of Frustrated Homicide committed as follows:

"Criminal Case No. 87497

That on or about the 28th day of March, 1991, in the (M)unicipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Ronaldo Flores on his legs, thereby inflicting upon the latter injuries which would ordinarily cause his death thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of his will, that is due to the timely and able medical attendance rendered to said Ronaldo Flores which prevented his death."