Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12696)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Dulin y Narag, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. The case arises from an information filed January 7, 1991 charging Alfredo Dulin y Narag with murder for the stabbing death of Francisco Batulan on August 22, 1990 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
At trial the prosecution presented eyewitness testimony (Alexander Tamayao and barangay tanod Romulo Cabalza), the victim’s wife Estelita Batulan, and Dr. Nelson Macaraniag (surgeon/medico-legal witness). The witnesses related that an altercation occurred at the house of Vicente Danao, Tamayao saw Dulin on top of the already-prostrate Batulan thrusting a knife, and Estelita reported prior threats by Dulin against Batulan. The medico-legal certificate and hospital records established that Batulan suffered multiple stab wounds (twelve) and died from hypovolemic shock secondary to massive hemothorax; records also showed Dulin was treated for injuries. Dulin testified that Batulan initially stabbed him, that they grappled for the weapon, that he wrested the weapon from Batulan, ran into the house of Danao while Batulan pursued him, and that the fatal stabbing occurred during a renewed struggle over the weapon.
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 3, Tuguegarao) convicted Dulin of murder on December 29, 1997 but appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and imposed reclusion temporal in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years), plus damages. On appeal the Court of Appeals, by decision dated August 26, 2005, affirmed the conviction but held that treachery qualified the killing and modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, while adjusting monetary awards; the CA denied reconsideration on January 12, 2006. Dulin then el...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to appreciate the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not treating self-defense as a privileged mitigating circumstance (incomplete self-defense) if complete self-defense was unavailing.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstanc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)