People v. Dawaton
People v. Dawaton
People v. Dawaton
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
EDGAR DAWATON was found by the trial court guilty of murder qualified by treachery
and sentenced to death, ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 plus
the accessory penalties provided by law, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs of suit. 1
cräläwvirtualibräry
The prosecution presented as witnesses the very persons who were with the accused
and the victim during the incident, namely, Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez. The
prosecution also presented Generosa Tupaz, the mother of the victim, to prove the civil
liability of the accused.
The evidence for the prosecution: On 20 September 1998 Esmeraldo Cortez was
entertaining visitors in his house in Sitio Garden, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora. His
brother-in-law Edgar Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Lavares dropped by at about
12:00 o'clock noon followed by Domingo Reyes shortly after. All three (3) guests of
Esmeraldo were residents of Sitio Garden. They started drinking soon after. At about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and after having consumed four (4) bottles of gin, they
went to the house of Amado Dawaton, Edgar's uncle, located about twenty (20) meters
away from Esmeraldo's house. They stayed at the balcony of the house and continued
drinking. Amado Dawaton was not in.
Already drunk, Leonides decided to sleep on a papag or wooden bench, lying down on
his right side facing Domingo and Edgar using his right hand for a pillow. Edgar,
Domingo and Esmeraldo continued drinking until they finished another bottle of gin.
At about 3:30 in the afternoon, 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
stainless knife with a blade 2 to 3 inches long. Without a word, he approached Leonides
who was sleeping and stabbed him near the base of his neck. 4 Awakened and surprised,
Leonides got up and blurted: "Bakit Pare, bakit?"5 Instead of answering, Edgar again
stabbed Leonides on the upper part of his neck, spilling blood on Leonides' arm.
Leonides attempted to flee but Edgar who was much bigger grabbed the collar of his
shirt and thus effectively prevented him from running away. Edgar then repeatedly
stabbed Leonides who, despite Edgar's firm hold on him, was still able to move about
twenty (20) meters away from the house of Amado Dawaton before he fell to the
ground at the back of Esmeraldo's house. But even then, Edgar still continued to stab
him. Edgar only stopped stabbing Leonides when the latter already expired. Edgar then
ran away towards the house of his uncle Carlito Baras situated behind the cockpit.
Domingo and Esmeraldo were positioned a few meters away from where Leonides was
sleeping when he was initially assaulted by Edgar. They were shocked by what
happened but other than pleading for Edgar to stop they were unable to help Leonides.
Domingo left for his house soon after the stabbing started as he did not want to get
involved. Nonetheless he felt pity for Leonides so he returned a few minutes later.
By then, Leonides was already dead and people had already gathered at the site. The
mayor who was in a nearby cement factory arrived and instructed 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.
Accused-appellant Edgar Dawaton was the sole witness for the defense. He did not
deny that he stabbed Leonides Lavares but insisted that he was provoked into stabbing
him. Edgar claimed that the night prior to 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 started drinking gin at about 7:00 o'clock in the
evening and ended at 3:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day. He slept and
woke up at 6:00 o'clock in the morning of 20 September 1998.
Apparently, he did not have enough of the prior evening's drinking orgy. He went to his
uncle's house early that morning and after his uncle bought two (2) bottles of gin they
started drinking again. Domingo Reyes arrived at around 7:30 in the morning and
joined them. Esmeraldo Cortez joined them about 12:00 o'clock noon and bought two
(2) more bottles of gin. Later, the group with the exception of Armando Ramirez
transferred to the house of Esmeraldo upon the latter's invitation and drank two (2)
more bottles of gin.
In Edgar's version of the stabbing incident, a drunk and angry Leonides arrived at about
2:30 in the afternoon and demanded that they - he and Edgar - return candles
(magbalikan [tayo] ng kandila).6 Leonides was godfather of a son of Edgar. Leonides
also cursed and threatened to hang a grenade on Edgar (P - t - ng ina mo. Hintayin mo
ako. Kukuha ako ng granada at sasabitan kita!).7 cräläwvirtualibräry
According to Edgar, he tried to calm down Leonides but the latter insisted on going
home purportedly to get a grenade. Alarmed because he knew Leonides had a grenade,
Edgar went home to look for a bladed weapon. He already had a knife with him but he
thought it was short. Not finding another weapon, he returned to Esmeraldo's house.
When he returned, Leonides was still in Esmeraldo's house and had joined in the
drinking. He sat opposite Leonides who resumed his tirades against him.
Again Leonides started to leave for his house purportedly to get a grenade. Afraid that
Leonides would make good his threat, Edgar held on to him and stabbed him. He did
not know where and exactly how many times he struck Leonides but he recalled doing
it three (3) times before his mind went blank (nablangko).8 Edgar also claimed that he
was in this mental condition when he left Leonides and ran to the house of Carlito
Baras. He did not know that he had already killed Leonides, only that he stabbed him
thrice. He regained his senses only when he reached his uncle Carlito's house.
Edgar further said that he sought his uncle's help so he could surrender but he was told
to wait because his uncle was then taking a bath. It was while waiting for his uncle
when the policemen arrived to arrest him. He maintained that he voluntarily went with
them.
The medico-legal certificate dated 24 September 1998 issued by Dr. Ernesto C. del
Rosario9 showed that the victim sustained a stab wound at the back and ten (10) stab
wounds in front. He also had slash wounds on his left hand and his tongue was cut off.
The immediate cause of death was determined to be "Hypovolemic Shock due to
hemorrhage, multiple stabbed (sic) wounds."10 cräläwvirtualibräry
On 20 October 1999 the parties entered into several stipulations which were embodied
in an Order.11 Specifically, they admitted the veracity of the Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated 21 September 1998 executed by SPO2 Ramil D. Gamboa and PO3 Gerry
M. Fabros,12 the police officers who arrested the accused; the genuineness and due
execution of the medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Ernesto C. del Rosario; and, the
authenticity of the certificate of death13 also issued by Dr. del Rosario. Thus, the
presentation of the arresting officers and Dr. del Rosario as witnesses was dispensed
with.
On 20 November 1999 the trial court convicted Edgar Dawaton of murder qualified by
treachery and sentenced him to death.
Treachery clearly attended the killing. The accused attacked the victim while the latter
was in deep slumber owing to the excessive amount of alcohol he imbibed. We are not
persuaded by the version of the accused that the victim threatened to harm him with a
grenade and that it was only to prevent this from happening that he was forced to stab
Leonides. We defer instead to the judgment of the trial court which gave more credence
to the version of the prosecution witnesses inasmuch as it was in a better position to
decide on the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment during trial.
According to the prosecution witnesses, the victim had no chance to defend himself as
he was dead drunk and fast asleep. He had no inkling at all of what was going to
happen to him since there was no prior argument or untoward incident between him
and the accused. From all indications they were on friendly terms; as in fact they were
even kumpadres. No one knew nor expected that when the accused momentarily
excused himself, it was for the purpose of looking for a knife, and without any warning,
stabbing the victim who was sleeping.
There is treachery when the attack is upon an unconscious victim who could not have
put up any defense whatsoever,14 or a person who was dead drunk and sleeping on a
bench and had no chance to defend himself.15 Clearly, the attack was not only sudden
but also deliberately adopted by the accused to ensure its execution without risk to
himself.
The accused argues that trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the
attendance of mitigating and alternative circumstances in his favor. 16 He avers that he
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. We disagree. 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 not guilty. We have ruled that an
offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating
circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13 of The Revised Penal Code because to be
voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. 17 cräläwvirtualibräry
Nor can the accused avail of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as he
himself admitted that he was arrested at his uncle's residence. 18 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. 19 cräläwvirtualibräry
Resorting to sophistry, the accused argues that he was not arrested but "fetched" as he
voluntarily went with the policemen when they came for him. This attempt at semantics
is futile and absurd. 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. A surrender to
be 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 save them the trouble and expense necessarily included in his search and
capture.20 It is also settled that voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the
evidence adduced shows that it was the authorities who came looking for the
accused.21cräläwvirtualibräry
Moreover, the evidence submitted by the prosecution belies the claim of the accused
that he intended to submit himself to the authorities. The joint affidavit of the arresting
officers, the veracity of which was admitted by the parties and evidenced by a 20
October 1999 Order of the trial court, revealed that they chanced upon the accused
trying to escape from the rear of the cockpit building when they came looking for
him.22cräläwvirtualibräry
Similarly, there is no factual basis to credit the accused with the mitigating
circumstance of outraged feeling analogous or similar 23 to passion and
obfuscation.24 Other than his self-serving allegations, there was no evidence that the
victim threatened him with a grenade. Domingo Reyes and Esmeraldo Cortez testified
that there was no prior altercation or disagreement between Edgar and Leonides during
the drinking spree, and they did not know of any reason for Edgar's hostility and
violence. On the contrary, Esmeraldo Cortez even recalled seeing the two (2) in a
playful banter (lambingan) during the course of their drinking 25 indicating that the
attack on the accused was completely unexpected.
The accused would want us to reconsider the penalty imposed on him on account of his
not being a recidivist. He contends that an appreciation of this factor calls for a
reduction of the penalty.
The allegation that the accused was drunk when he committed the crime was
corroborated by the prosecution witnesses. The accused and his drinking companions
had consumed four (4) bottles of gin at the house of Esmeraldo Cortez, each one
drinking at least a bottle.26 It was also attested that while the four (4) shared another
bottle of gin at the house of Amado Dawaton, it was the accused who drank most of its
contents.27 In addition, Esmeraldo testified that when Edgar and Leonides arrived at his
house that noon, they were already intoxicated.28 There being no indication that the
accused was a habitual drunkard or that his alcoholic intake was intended to fortify his
resolve to commit the crime, the circumstance of intoxication should be credited in his
favor.
Consequently, we find that the trial court erroneously imposed the penalty of death.
The accused was charged with murder for which the law provides a penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death. Under Art. 63, par. 3, of The Revised Penal Code, in all cases in
which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, such as in
this case, when the commission of the act is attended by a mitigating circumstance and
there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Since no
aggravating circumstance attended the killing but there existed the mitigating
circumstance of intoxication, the accused should be sentenced only to the lesser
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The trial court correctly ordered the accused to pay civil indemnity in the amount
of P50,000.00 to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the fact that a
crime was committed resulting in the death of the victim and that the accused was
responsible therefor.29 The heirs are also entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art.
2206 of the New Civil Code on account of the mental anguish which they suffered, and
the amount of P50,000.00 is considered reasonable according to existing
jurisprudence.30 cräläwvirtualibräry
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:
1
Decision penned by Judge Rebecca R. Mariano, RTC Br. 96, Baler, Aurora; Records, p. 129.
2
Records, p. 1.
3
Id., p. 19.
4
TSN, 9 September 1999, p. 3; Esmeraldo Cortez testified that Leonides Levares was first stabbed on his upper left
shoulder, TSN, 21 October 1999, p. 3.
5
TSN, 21 October 1999, p. 3.
6
TSN, 19 July 2000, p. 7.
7
Ibid.
8
TSN, 19 July 2000, p. 8.
9
Records, p. 8.
10
Ibid.
11
Records, p. 60.
12
Id., p. 11.
13
Id., p. 9.
14
People v. Flores, G.R. No. 116524, 18 January 1996, 252 SCRA 31.
15
People v. de Guia, G.R. No. 123172, 2 October 1997, 280 SCRA 141.
16
Appellants Brief, p. 5; Rollo, p. 45.
17
People v. Noble, 77 Phil 93 (1946).
18
TSN, 19 July 2000, p. 10.
19
People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, 21 August 2001.
20
Ibid.
21
People v. Sumalpong, G.R. No. 124705, 20 January 20 1998, 284 SCRA 464, citing People v. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-
02, 19 October 1994, 237 SCRA 653.
22
Par. 5 of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of the arresting officers states, to wit:
Na, inabutan namin siya (Dawaton) na papatakas na sa likod ng Sabungan ng Dingalan ng Sitio Aves, Brgy. Paltic,
Dingalan, Aurora at malapit na kami sa kanya (Dawaton) ay bigla siyang may ibinalibag na patalim sa sukalan bago
humarap sa amin.
23
Art. 13(10), The Revised Penal Code.
24
Art. 13 (6), id.
25
TSN, 21 October 1999, p. 3.
26
TSN, 9 September 1999, p. 8.
27
TSN, 21 October 1999, p. 7.
28
Id., p. 6.
29
People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 135666, 20 July 2001.
30
People v. Hapa, G.R. No. 125698, 19 July 2001.