G.R. No. 141217 - People vs. Duban

On or about October 9, 1997, at approximately 11:00 a.m. in Manila, the accused, Eusebio Duban y Domingo, was charged with the murder of Dionisio Barboza, a coconut vendor.
The indictment stated that the accused, with apparent premeditation, treacherously hurled a stone weighing about one kilo at the victim, striking him at the right rear portion of the head and ear, which resulted in traumatic head injuries leading to the victim’s death.
The crime was characterized by the elements of willfulness, unlawful intent, and the use of personal violence, qualifying it as murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7569.

Poquiz, a jeepney driver, testified that he witnessed the incident while he himself was outside his residence.
According to Poquiz’s account, as he was sitting in his parked jeepney after purchasing a coconut juice, the victim was seen standing beside his coconut cart when the accused, identified as a “jeepney barker,” approached and then hurled a stone from about one meter away.
After throwing the stone, the accused immediately fled, leaving the victim to suffer fatal injuries.

Conducted by Dr. Ravell Ronald R. Baluyot, the autopsy revealed distinctive injuries such as a stellate lacerated wound, extensive scalp hematoma, linear fracture of skull bones, and extensive intracranial hemorrhage.
The physical findings confirmed the stone struck the victim at the right rear portion of his head and ear, corroborating the prosecution’s narrative.

The accused claimed that shortly after alighting from a jeepney at the “de la Fuente jeepney station,” he encountered a situation where a jeepney driver and his inebriated companion (purportedly the victim) initiated a confrontation involving an offer to drink liquor.
Appellant maintained that when the victim, after having thrown the contents of a glass of gin at his face, attempted to strike him with a bolo, he evaded the attack.
In the ensuing commotion, the accused resorted to picking up a stone (allegedly found placed under a tire) and threw it at the victim when the latter was approximately three meters away and approaching him.

The manner and direction of the blow (hitting the right rear portion of the head) were inconsistent with the claim that the two were facing each other at close range.
The fact that the victim was not disarmed and that the accused fled immediately after the incident cast further doubt on a bona fide self-defense scenario.
The post-arrest silence of the accused, despite an earlier assertion of having explained his side, further weakened his claim.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, emphasizing the demonstration of treachery in the crime.
The trial court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua and imposed accessory penalties.
In addition to the criminal penalty, the accused was ordered to pay civil liabilities:

Moral and nominal damages for the loss suffered by the victim’s legal heirs.
Civil indemnity/damages to cover the loss of the victim’s life, including temperate and exemplary damages, along with interest.

The appellate briefs centered on alleged evidentiary discrepancies, particularly contesting the credibility of Poquiz’s testimony and the factual basis supporting the self-defense claim.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the eyewitness testimony of Poquiz and the postmortem findings, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the inconsistencies in the accused’s self-defense narrative outweighed his claim, given the circumstantial evidence.

Whether the element of treachery—mandating a deliberate, unexpected, and unresisted attack—was sufficiently proven.
Whether the introduction of treachery as a qualifying circumstance justified the imposition of the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Whether the trial court rightly awarded moral and nominal damages, given the lack of evidence to substantiate mental anguish or serious anxiety in the victim’s legal heirs.
Whether the computation of actual damages, including the indemnity for loss of earning capacity and additional temperate and exemplary damages, was properly supported by the evidence submitted.