People V. Dawaton.docx

People v. Dawaton G.R. No. 146247 17 Sept. 2002 | Bellosillo, J. | Mitigating circumstances; voluntary surrender; passion and obfuscation PETITIONER: People of the Philippines RESPONDENTS: Edgar Dawaton DOCTRINE: A voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to shave them the trouble and expense necessarily included in his search and capture. Moreover, it cannot be appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that it was the authorities who came looking for the accused. FACTS: 1. Esmeraldo was entertaining visitors in his house. His brother-in-law, Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Llavares (victim) dropped by his house at noon. Shortly after, Domingo followed. They started drinking soon after. 2. After having consumed four (4) bottles of gin, they went to Amado Dawaton’s (Edgar’s uncle) house. They stayed at the balcony of the house and continued drinking. 3. Already drunk, Leonides decided to sleep on a papag, lying down on his right side facing Domingo and Edgar using his right hand for a pillow. Edgar and Domingo continued drinking and finished another bottle of gin (grabe naman tong mga to hahaha). 4. Twenty (20) minutes after Leonides had gone to sleep, Edgar stood up and left for his house. When he returned, he brought with him a knife and without a word, he approached Leonides who was sleeping and stabbed him near the base of his neck. 5. Awakened and surprised, Leonides got up and blurted: “Bakit pare, bakit?” Instead of answering, Edgar again stabbed him on the upper neck, spilling blood on Leonides’ arm. 6. Leonides attempeted to flee but Edgar (who was much bigger) grabbed his colar and prevented him from running away. Edgar continued stabbing him until he expired. Edgar then ran towards the house of his uncle situated behind the cockpit. 7. Domingo and Esmeraldo were shocked by what happened but they were not able to held Leonides. Domingo left soon after as he did not want to get involved. He felt guilty so he returned after a few minutes. By then, Leonides was already dead. The

mayor instructed the people to not go near the body. They pointed to the direction where Edgar fled and arrested him in his uncle’s house. 8. Medico legal certificate: cause of death – hopovolemic shock due to hemorrhage, multiple stabbed wounds. 9. An information for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation was filed against Edgar to which he initially pleaded guilty during the pretrial. He subsequently offered to plead guilty for a lesser offense of homicide but was rejected by the prosecution. The case proceeded to trial. 10. Trial court convicted Edgar of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to death. 11. Edgar argued that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty because of the mitigating circumstances in his favor. He avers that he is entitled to: a. Mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty; and b. Outraged feeling analogous or similar to passion and obfuscation ISSUE: WON Edgar may benefit to the mitigating circumstances of (1) voluntary surrender and (2) passion or obfuscation – NO to both. HELD: 1. No voluntary surrender. While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with murder for which he had already entered a plea of guilty. An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance under Art. 13 of the RPC because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. 2. The following elements must be present for voluntary surrender to be appreciated: a. The offender has not been actually arrested; b. The offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and c. The surrender must be voluntary 3. In the case at bar, that he did not try to escape or resist arrest after he was taken into custody by the authorities did not amount to voluntary surrender. 4. A voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to shave them the trouble and expense necessarily included in his search and capture. 5. Moreover, it cannot be appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that it was the authorities who came looking for the accused. 6. Evidence revealed that they chanced upon Edgar trying to escape from the rear of the cockpit building when they came looking for him. 7. No outraged feeling analogous or similar to passion or obfuscation. No evidence that the Leonides threatened him with a grenade. Domingo and Esmeraldo testified that there was no prior altercation or disagreement between Edgar and Leonides

during the drinking spree. They did not know of any reason for Edgar’s hostility and violence. On the contrary, Esmeraldo even recalled seeing the two in a playful banter (lambingan) during the course of their drinking indicating that the attack was completely unexpected. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the court a quo finding the accused EDGAR DAWATON guilty of MURDER qualified by treachery is AFFIRMED with the modification that the penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. The accused is ordered to pay the heirs of Leonides Lavares P50,000.00 in civil indemnity and P50,000.00 in moral damages. SO ORDERED.