G.R. No. 117690 ; September 1, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO DANO y JUGILON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of March 16, 1994, in Tiguian, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, a violent altercation occurred between brothers Alberto Dano (accused-appellant) and Emeterio Dano (victim). Prosecution witness Wilfredo Tapian testified that he was summoned to the scene where he found the victim, Emeterio, armed with a scythe, shouting challenges at Alberto, who was inside his house. Wilfredo attempted to pacify Emeterio but failed. Emeterio then leaped towards the window where Alberto was and attempted to slash him. Wilfredo left, and later, Barangay Captain Demosthenes Peralta arrived, to whom Alberto voluntarily surrendered, confessing to killing his brother. The victim’s body, bearing multiple hacking wounds, was found at the scene. A bloodstained scythe with “Alberto Dano” carved on it was recovered.
The defense, anchored on self-defense and defense of family, presented a different account. Alberto claimed that after ignoring repeated death threats, the drunken Emeterio forcibly entered his home, wielding the scythe and causing his family to scream in terror. A struggle ensued on the porch, during which they both fell down the stairs. Alberto stated he managed to disarm his brother and, in the process, inflicted the fatal wounds, though he claimed he was not in a normal state of mind and did not know how many times he struck. Afterward, he surrendered to authorities.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly convicted Alberto Dano of Murder, or if his plea of self-defense and defense of a relative is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Murder to Homicide. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established that Alberto killed Emeterio, a fact corroborated by his own extrajudicial confession and surrender. However, the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not proven. Treachery requires that the means of execution be deliberately adopted without risk to the assailant. The evidence showed a sudden, violent, and close-quarters struggle initiated by the armed victim, negating any deliberate and methodical attack by Alberto. Evident premeditation was also absent, as the confrontation was spontaneous.
While the plea of complete self-defense failed because Alberto admitted to inflicting multiple fatal wounds which were disproportionate to the aggression after disarming his brother, the Court considered the privileged mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The unlawful aggression by the victim, his own brother, who was drunk and violently invading Alberto’s home, naturally caused a powerful excitement that obscured his reason. This mitigating circumstance, with no aggravating circumstances present, warranted a penalty reduction. The Court sentenced Alberto to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as a minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as a maximum, and ordered him to pay civil indemnity and damages.