G.R. No. 146247 - People vs. Dawaton

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146247)

Information, Arraignment, and Pre-Trial

The Information for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation was filed on 11 March 1999 against Edgar Dawaton. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial on 7 May 1999, he offered to plead guilty to homicide, but the prosecution rejected the offer. The case therefore proceeded to trial.

Evidence for the Prosecution

The prosecution evidence established that on 20 September 1998 Esmeraldo Cortez was entertaining visitors in his house in Sitio Garden, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora, around noon. Among the visitors were Edgar Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Lavares, who arrived together, followed shortly by Domingo Reyes. The three men started drinking. At about 3:00 p.m., after consuming four bottles of gin, they went to the house of Edgar’s uncle, Amado Dawaton, approximately twenty meters away. They stayed on the balcony and continued drinking. Amado was not in.

When Leonides, already drunk, decided to sleep, he lay on a wooden bench facing Domingo and Edgar, using his right hand as a pillow. Edgar, Domingo, and Esmeraldo continued drinking until they finished another bottle of gin. At about 3:30 p.m., about twenty minutes after Leonides had gone to sleep, Edgar stood up and left for his house. When he returned, he brought a stainless knife with a blade two to three inches long.

Without any warning, Edgar approached the sleeping Leonides and stabbed him near the base of the neck. Leonides awakened and reacted by blurting, “Bakit Pare, bakit?” Instead of responding, Edgar stabbed Leonides again on the upper part of the neck, spilling blood on Leonides’ arm. Leonides attempted to flee, but Edgar grabbed the collar of his shirt and prevented him from running away. Edgar repeatedly stabbed Leonides, who nevertheless was able to move about twenty meters before he fell to the ground behind Esmeraldo’s house. Even after Leonides fell, Edgar continued stabbing until Leonides expired.

Domingo and Esmeraldo were a few meters away when the stabbing began. They were shocked and could only plead for Edgar to stop. Domingo left shortly thereafter because he did not want to get involved, but he returned a few minutes later. By then, Leonides was already dead and people had gathered at the site. The mayor, who was nearby at a cement factory, arrived and told them not to go near the body. They pointed to the direction where Edgar fled. Edgar was later arrested at the house of his uncle Carlito Baras at Sitio Aves, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan.

Defense Evidence and Version

The defense was anchored solely on Edgar Dawaton as witness. He did not deny that he stabbed Leonides but insisted that he was provoked. He testified that on the night before the stabbing incident, or on 19 September 1998, his uncle Armando Ramirez went to his house to welcome his return from Cavite where he worked as a carpenter. They drank gin from about 7:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. the following day. Edgar slept and woke up at 6:00 a.m. on 20 September 1998. He went early to Armando’s house, where after Armando bought two bottles of gin they drank again. Domingo Reyes arrived at about 7:30 a.m., and joined them. Esmeraldo Cortez arrived around noon and bought two more bottles of gin. Later, except for Armando Ramirez, the group transferred to Esmeraldo’s house upon invitation and continued drinking.

Edgar’s account of the stabbing was that Leonides arrived at about 2:30 p.m. drunk and angry. Leonides demanded that they “magbalikan [tayo] ng kandila,” and he was reportedly Leonides’ godfather’s son connection to Edgar. Leonides also cursed and threatened to hang a grenade on Edgar. Edgar claimed that he attempted to calm Leonides, but Leonides insisted on going home to get a grenade. Alarmed because Edgar knew Leonides had a grenade, he went home to look for a bladed weapon. He already had a knife, but he thought it was too short. After he could not find another weapon, he returned to Esmeraldo’s house.

In his version, Leonides was still inside and resumed tirades. Again, Leonides allegedly started to leave to get the grenade. Afraid that Leonides would carry out the threat, Edgar held on to him and stabbed him. He did not know where or exactly how many times he struck Leonides, though he recalled doing it three times before his mind went blank. He asserted that when he left Leonides and ran to the house of Carlito Baras, he did not know that Leonides was dead; he only knew he stabbed him thrice. He said his senses returned only upon reaching Carlito’s house. He claimed that he tried to get help to surrender, but he was told to wait because his uncle was taking a bath; policemen arrived and arrested him while he was waiting. He insisted that he voluntarily went with the policemen.

The medico-legal certificate dated 24 September 1998, issued by Dr. Ernesto C. del Rosario, showed that the victim sustained a stab wound at the back and ten stab wounds in front. There were slash wounds on the left hand, and the tongue was cut off. The immediate cause of death was determined to be “Hypovolemic Shock due to hemorrhage, multiple stabbed wounds.”

On 20 October 1999, the parties entered into stipulations embodied in an Order. They admitted the veracity of the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 21 September 1998 executed by SPO2 Ramil D. Gamboa and PO3 Gerry M. Fabros, the genuineness and due execution of the medico-legal certificate, and the authenticity of the certificate of death, also issued by Dr. del Rosario. Accordingly, presentation of the arresting officers and Dr. del Rosario as witnesses was dispensed with.

Trial Court Ruling

On 20 November 1999 the trial court convicted Edgar Dawaton of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to death. It ordered him to pay indemnity of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim, plus the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay costs of suit. The penalty was imposed despite his claims of mitigating circumstances.

Issues and the Parties’ Contentions

Edgar Dawaton argued that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty. He contended that he was entitled to mitigating and alternative circumstances, specifically invoking a plea of guilty to homicide offered at pre-trial. He also argued he should be credited with voluntary surrender by claiming that he was not “arrested” but merely “fetched,” and that his surrender was voluntary. He further invoked outraged feeling analogous or similar to passion and obfuscation, grounded on his assertion that Leonides had threatened him with a grenade and had provoked him into stabbing.

The prosecution, consistent with the testimonies of Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez, supported the conviction for murder qualified by treachery by emphasizing that the victim was dead drunk and fast asleep, had no inkling of any attack, and had no opportunity to defend himself. The prosecution also opposed the recognition of the alleged mitigating circumstances.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Guilt and Treachery

The Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the killing through the testimony of Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez, both of whom witnessed the fatal stabbing. The Court noted that this was not refuted in any material way by the accused, who admitted that he stabbed the victim three times before his mind went blank and could no longer recall what happened after that.

The Court also found that treachery clearly attended the killing. It reasoned that the accused attacked the victim while the latter was in deep slumber because of the excessive alcohol he had imbibed. The Court rejected the accused’s claim that Leonides threatened to harm him with a grenade and that he stabbed only to prevent the threat from being carried out. The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of credibility because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand.

The Court relied on the prosecution witnesses’ accounts that there had been no prior argument or untoward incident between Edgar and Leonides during the drinking spree. According to them, there was no warning at all when the accused momentarily excused himself and returned with a knife to stab a sleeping and unaware victim. The Court ruled that treachery exists when the attack is upon an unconscious victim who cannot put up any defense, or a person who is dead drunk and sleeping on a bench with no chance to defend himself. It concluded that the attack was not only sudden but deliberately adopted to ensure execution without risk to the accused.

Rejection of Claimed Mitigating Circumstances

The Court disagreed with the accused’s claim that he was entitled to mitigation based on his offer to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide. It held that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense could not be considered an attenuating circumstance under Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code because, for voluntariness, the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. It further stated that Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure required consent of the offended party and the prosecutor before an accused could plead guilty to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged, and that here the prosecution rejected the offer.

The Court likewise rejected the accused’s claim of voluntary surrender. It held that voluntary surrender required that the offender had not been actually arrested; that he surrendered himself to a person in authority; and that the surrender was voluntary. It dismissed the accused’s attempt at semantic distinction by characterizing his “fetched” argument as futile. The Court emphasized that not attempting to escape or resist after custody had been taken did not amount to voluntary surrender. It also reiterated the settled rule that voluntary surrender could not be appreciated where evidence showed it was the authorities who came looking for the accused.

The Court relied on the admitted joint affidav

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146247)

The accused, Edgar Dawaton, was charged with murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and was found guilty by the trial court.
The trial court imposed the death penalty and ordered P50,000.00 civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim, Leonides Lavares, plus the accessory penalties provided by law, and costs of suit.
The Court affirmed the conviction for murder qualified by treachery, but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua and adjusted the civil and moral awards.
The case proceeded through conviction by the trial court and review on appeal by the accused-appellant.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines appeared as Plaintiff, represented in the prosecution below against the accused-appellant, Edgar Dawaton.
The accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court, which found him guilty of murder qualified by treachery.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed both the finding of guilt and the proper penalty in light of alleged mitigating circumstances.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty and the damages awarded.

Key Factual Allegations

On 11 March 1999, an Information for murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation was filed against the accused-appellant.
At the incident on 20 September 1998, the victim, Leonides Lavares, was found stabbed in circumstances involving heavy alcohol consumption.
The prosecution witnesses, Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez, testified that they were together with the accused and the victim during the drinking spree.
The group began drinking at 12:00 noon at the house of Esmeraldo Cortez in Sitio Garden, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora.
At about 3:00 p.m., they transferred to the balcony of the house of the accused’s uncle, Amado Dawaton, located about twenty (20) meters away.
The accused, after the victim’s companion Leonides lay down to sleep facing Domingo and Edgar, momentarily excused himself.
When the accused returned, he brought a stainless knife with a blade of two to three (2-3) inches.
Without warning, the accused approached the victim who was sleeping and stabbed him near the base of the neck, repeated a stabbing after the victim reacted, and continued stabbing even as the victim tried to move away.
The stabbing ceased only after the victim had expired.
The prosecution witnesses stated that there was no prior argument or untoward incident and that the victim and accused were on friendly terms, even described as kumpadres.
The accused fled after the stabbing toward the house of Carlito Baras and was later arrested at that residence.
Generosa Tupaz, the mother of the victim, was presented to establish civil liability.

Defense Theory and Evidence

The accused-appellant did not deny stabbing the victim but claimed provocation and insisted that he acted to prevent harm from an alleged grenade threat.
The accused asserted that on the night of 19 September 1998, his uncle Armando Ramirez welcomed his return from Cavite, and the group drank gin continuously until early morning.
The accused claimed that after further drinking on 20 September 1998, the victim arrived drunk at around 2:30 p.m. demanding they return candles and then cursed and threatened to hang a grenade on the accused.
The accused claimed he tried to calm the victim, but the victim insisted on going home to retrieve a grenade.
According to the accused, he went home to look for a bladed weapon, returned without finding another suitable weapon, and later stabbed the victim after the victim resumed tirades and threatened again.
The accused stated that he could not recall where and exactly how many times he struck the victim, but he recalled doing it three (3) times before his mind “went blank.”
The accused maintained that he did not know he had killed the victim and that his senses returned only after reaching Carlito Baras, where he sought help to surrender.
The defense argued that the accused voluntarily went with the authorities when policemen arrived and denied any attempt to escape or resist.
The defense evidence included the accused’s testimony and reliance on the claimed provocation.
The prosecution and defense ultimately joined issue as to qualification, treachery, mitigating circumstances, and the proper penalty.

Medico-Legal and Stipulations

The medico-legal certificate dated 24 September 1998, issued by Dr. Ernesto C. del Rosario, reported multiple injuries inflicted by stabbing and cutting.
The certificate indicated that the victim sustained a stab wound at the back and ten (10) stab wounds in front.
The certificate also reported slash wounds on the victim’s left hand and a cut tongue.
The immediate cause of death was determined to be “Hypovolemic Shock due to hemorrhage, multiple stabbed (sic) wounds.”
On 20 October 1999, the parties entered into stipulations embodied in an Order.
The stipulations admitted the veracity of the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by the arresting police officers, and admitted the genuineness and due execution of the medico-legal certificate and the certificate of death.
As a result, the presentation of the arresting officers and the medico-legal doctor as witnesses was dispensed with.

Elements of Murder Assessed

The Court held that the accused murdered the victim and that this fact was sufficiently established by the testimony of Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez who witnessed the stabbing.
The Court treated the accused’s admission that he stabbed the victim three times as an additional confirmation of participation in the killing.
The Court found that the prosecution evidence established the circumstances surrounding the attack, including the victim’s state as the accused stabbed him.
The Court rejected the defense version of provocation based on the claimed grenade threat, finding no persuasive factual basis to overturn the prosecution witnesses’ narrative.
The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of credibility because the trial court had the opportunity t