In a homicide case, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense cannot be claimed if the initial unlawful aggression has ceased. This means that even if a person was initially attacked, they cannot claim self-defense if they retaliated after the attacker was disarmed or no longer posed an immediate threat. The accused, Alfredo Dulin, was initially charged with murder but was eventually convicted of homicide because the element of treachery was not proven. The court emphasized that for self-defense to be valid, the threat must be continuous and imminent; retaliation is not self-defense.

From Victim to Aggressor: Examining the Boundaries of Self-Defense

The case of People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Dulin y Narag originated from an incident on August 22, 1990, in Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Alfredo Dulin was accused of fatally stabbing Francisco Batulan. The initial charge was murder, with the prosecution alleging that Dulin acted with evident premeditation and treachery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense, sentencing Dulin to imprisonment. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified this decision, convicting Dulin of murder and prescribing reclusion perpetua. Dulin appealed, arguing that his actions were in self-defense and that, at most, he should be found guilty of homicide. The central legal question revolved around whether Dulin’s actions constituted self-defense or an unlawful act of retaliation, and whether treachery was present in the killing.

In Philippine law, claiming self-defense requires admitting responsibility for the act but arguing it was justified. The burden of proof lies with the accused to demonstrate self-defense. The Supreme Court, in analyzing Dulin’s case, reiterated the essential elements of self-defense: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. These elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Of these, unlawful aggression is the most critical. The absence of unlawful aggression negates any claim of self-defense. As the Supreme Court has stated,

Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself; the peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.

The court distinguished between actual or material unlawful aggression and imminent unlawful aggression. Actual aggression involves a physical attack, while imminent aggression is an impending attack. In Dulin’s case, the court found that while Batulan initiated the attack, this aggression ceased when Dulin dispossessed Batulan of the weapon. The Supreme Court highlighted that even if Batulan continued to pursue Dulin, his actions no longer constituted aggression since Dulin was in control of the weapon. The court noted that the numerosity and nature of the wounds inflicted by Dulin indicated a determination to kill rather than defend himself. This point is crucial in understanding the court’s rejection of self-defense, as the circumstances suggested retaliation rather than an act of self-preservation.

The defense of incomplete self-defense, which could have reduced Dulin’s penalty, was also considered. Incomplete self-defense applies when most but not all elements of self-defense are present, specifically requiring unlawful aggression. Since the court determined that unlawful aggression had ceased, the argument for incomplete self-defense was also dismissed. This ruling emphasizes the importance of the continuous nature of the threat in justifying self-defense. The court differentiated between self-defense and retaliation, stating that in self-defense, the aggression is ongoing, whereas, in retaliation, the aggression has already ceased. This distinction is critical in determining criminal liability.

Another significant aspect of the case was the court’s evaluation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance for murder. Treachery exists when the offender employs means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves from the defense the offended party might make. The two conditions for treachery are that the assailant employed means that gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves, and that these means were deliberately adopted by the assailant. In Dulin’s case, the court found that treachery was not present because Batulan was forewarned and had the opportunity to defend himself. The fight was a result of a continued struggle, not a sudden, unexpected attack. The essence of treachery is a sudden, unexpected attack that the victim cannot resist. Since this was not the case, Dulin could not be convicted of murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dulin guilty of homicide, which carries a lesser penalty than murder. The court then imposed an indeterminate sentence, considering the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Regarding civil liabilities, the court modified the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ordered Dulin to pay the heirs of Francisco Batulan P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. These amounts reflect the current judicial policy regarding damages in homicide cases, which aims to compensate the victim’s family for their loss and suffering. The court also imposed an interest of 6% per annum on all items of civil liability from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid. This interest ensures that the compensation keeps pace with economic realities and provides additional relief to the victim’s heirs. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the application of self-defense and treachery in Philippine law, providing a detailed analysis that is essential for legal practitioners and those seeking to understand their rights and responsibilities.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Alfredo Dulin acted in self-defense when he killed Francisco Batulan, and whether treachery was present to qualify the killing as murder. The court ultimately determined that self-defense did not apply, and treachery was not proven, leading to a conviction for homicide.
What are the elements of self-defense in Philippine law?	The elements of self-defense are unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Unlawful aggression is the most critical element, without which self-defense cannot be claimed.
What is unlawful aggression?	Unlawful aggression is an actual or imminent attack that puts the life or personal safety of the person defending themselves in real peril. It must involve a physical or material attack that is unlawful, meaning without any legal justification.
When does unlawful aggression cease?	Unlawful aggression ceases when the attacker is disarmed, incapacitated, or retreats, such that they no longer pose an immediate threat. If the person initially attacked retaliates after the aggression has ceased, it is considered retaliation, not self-defense.
What is incomplete self-defense?	Incomplete self-defense exists when most but not all elements of self-defense are present. Specifically, unlawful aggression must be present, but one or both of the other elements (reasonable necessity and lack of provocation) may be absent.
What is the difference between self-defense and retaliation?	Self-defense occurs when the aggression is ongoing, and the person defending themselves acts to repel the attack. Retaliation, on the other hand, occurs when the aggression has already ceased, and the person initially attacked seeks to inflict harm in return.
What is treachery?	Treachery is a qualifying circumstance that elevates a killing to murder. It involves employing means to ensure the execution of the crime without risk to the offender from the defense the offended party might make, typically involving a sudden and unexpected attack.
What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs?	The court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of Francisco Batulan. Additionally, an interest of 6% per annum was imposed on these amounts from the date of the finality of the decision until fully paid.

This case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of self-defense and unlawful aggression in Philippine law. It illustrates that the right to self-defense is not absolute and is contingent upon the presence of an ongoing threat. The ruling serves as a reminder that actions taken after the cessation of unlawful aggression may be considered unlawful retaliation, leading to criminal liability.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Dulin y Narag, G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015