Story of self-defense must NOT be out of this world

To successfully posit the theory of self-defense, an accused must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. In this regard, appellant wretchedly failed. Not only is appellant's testimony self-serving and uncorroborated, it is completely incredible. It is contrary to human experience for an aggressor to "arm" himself with a bamboo pole, one end of which happens to be firmly embedded in the ground and the other securely tied to a clothesline, when he had all the time in the world to choose a more deadly weapon to carry out his plan. To further magnify our disbelief, appellant claims that he just happened to have a bladed weapon on his person at the time of the incident. This is the height of absurdity. Not only is appellant an unbelievable witness, his tall-tale testimony is likewise wholly unworthy of belief. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness; it must be credible in itself. In this case, the fantasy which appellant concocted for his defense causes us to wonder whether appellant and his counsel are really serious in pursuing this appeal, or perhaps they just did not have any credible defense to present. [G.R. No. 114971. November 19, 1996]