FACTS:

Virgilio Talampas was convicted of homicide for killing Ernesto Matic. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rejected Talampas' pleas of self-defense and accident and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal. The RTC also ordered Talampas to pay death indemnity, moral damages, actual damages, and temperate damages to the heirs of Ernesto Matic. Talampas filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking the review of his conviction. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision. Talampas then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the conviction of Virgilio Talampas for homicide was proper.

2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the pleas of self-defense and accident.

RULING:

1. The conviction of Virgilio Talampas for homicide was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

2. The trial court did not err in rejecting the pleas of self-defense and accident.

PRINCIPLES:

• A conviction for homicide can be based on the testimony of an eyewitness.

• The burden of proof rests on the accused to establish self-defense or accident.

• In a claim of self-defense, it is necessary to prove the presence of all the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.

• In a claim of accident, it is necessary to prove that the act causing the injury was not intentional but accidental.