Title
People vs. Duban
Case
G.R. No. 141217
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2003
Appellant Eusebio Duban hurled a stone at victim Dionisio Barboza, causing fatal head injuries. Claiming self-defense, appellant was convicted of murder due to treachery, with damages awarded to the victim's heirs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96016)

Facts of the Case

The accusation charged that on October 9, 1997, at 11:00 a.m., in Manila, the appellant willfully and unlawfully killed the victim by striking him at the back of the head with a stone, resulting in fatal injuries. The appellant entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment. The prosecution’s case was supported by eyewitness testimony from Dionisio Poquiz, who observed the incident, wherein the appellant hurled a stone that struck the victim, causing him to fall unconscious and subsequently die after being taken to the hospital.

Evidence and Testimonies

Eyewitness Poquiz testified that the appellant approached the victim while the latter was selling coconuts and without warning, threw a stone at him from behind. The autopsy conducted revealed traumatic head injuries, confirming that the victim was attacked from behind, supporting allegations of treachery. In contrast, the appellant claimed self-defense, asserting that the victim had attempted to attack him with a bolo, prompting him to throw the stone.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court dismissed the appellant's defense of self-defense, determining that the evidence presented by the prosecution established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the absence of any basis for believing that the victim posed an immediate threat at the time of the attack, thus agreeing that the killing was executed with treachery.

Legal Principles Involved

The court reasoned that treachery was present since the attack was sudden and occurred without warning, leaving the victim with no opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code defined the crime of murder, under which the appellant was convicted, noting that there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to alter the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Appellant's Appeal

The appellant’s appeal rested on assertions that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the prosecution's witness testimonies were inherently improbable. However, the appellate court noted the consistent and credible nature of Poquiz's testimony, alongside the findings of the postmortem examination, countering the appellant's self-defense claim.

Civil Liability and Damages

The trial court's decision included orders for the appellant to compensate the victim's heirs for moral damages, nominal damages, and civil indemnity, but the appellate court modified the amounts due to concerns over lack of evidence for certain damages claimed. It affirmed the constitutional right to indemnity for wrongful death but required

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.