People Vs. Dawaton - Digest

People vs. Dawaton GR No. 1446247. September 17, 2002. I. Facts: BELLOSILLO, J.: Esmeraldo Cortez was inviting over guests to his house on September 20, 1998. His brother-inlaw Edgar Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Lavares arrived at 12:00 noon. Domingo Reyes arrived shortly thereafter. The group, all of which are residents of Sitio Garden, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora, started drinking. Came 3:00 pm, they decided to transfer to the house of Edgar Dawaton's uncle Amado after the group has finished four bottles of gin. Upon arriving at the elder Dawaton's house, they proceeded at the balcony and continued their drinking spree there. The elder Dawaton was not home at the time of their session. Leonides, due to his drunkenness, opted to sleep on the papag or wooden bench on the balcony area, as the three continued drinking until they finished another bottle of gin. At around 3:30 pm, Edgar stood up and left for his house. He went back with a stainless knife ranging 2-3 inches in length, and used it to stab the sleeping Leonides near the base of his neck. Awakened by the sudden attack, Leonides was distraught of his companion's deed against him. Edgar gave him another stab on the upper part of his neck, spilling blood on the arm of Leonides. Leonides tried to escape for his life, but the bigger Edgar grabbed him from the collar of his shirt and stabbed him multiple times. Leonides still managed to move 20 meters away from the elder Dawaton's house, but he dropped in front of the Cortez residence. From that point, Edgar continuously stabbed him until Leonides expired. After the incident, he fled to the house of his uncle Carlito Baras, where he was arrested by the authorities, who found him when people surrounding the body of Leonides pointed them to Edgar's whereabouts. Domingo and Esmeraldo was shocked by the incident. Both failed to convince Edgar to stop stabbing Leonides, yet they were not able to help the poor victim. II. Issues 1. Whether or not the sentence of the trial court charging Dawaton guilty of murder qualified by treachery is valid. 2. Whether or not the account of Dawaton on his provocation by the victim, leading to the commission of the murder, is valid. III. Holding 1. Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court, with a few modifications on the penalty 2. No. There was no evidence to prove that account, as said by Domingo and Esmeraldo themselves.

IV. Rationale 1. The Supreme Court (SC) has specified the errors of the trial court in the imposition of the death penalty sentence, to wit: a.) The presence of the mitigating circumstance of intoxication was not taken into account by the trial court. The accused was drunk at the time of his commission of the crime, and there was no indication of his frequency of alcohol intake. b.) The presence of the said mitigating circumstance should entail the imposition of the lesser penalty, the crime being punishable by two indivisible penalties, namely reclusion perpetua and death. Under Article 63(3) of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty must be the one imposed in the presence of a mitigating circumstance. Hence the modification of the sentence of the trial court by the SC, from death to reclusion perpetua. 2. Treachery is involved in the commission of the crime. There is no question to that, since it is proven by the prosecution witnesses that at the time of the commission, the victim was drunk and fast asleep, and that Edgar unexpectedly started to attack the victim in his sleep. Hence the victim lacked the opportunity to defend himself from the attack. a.) The guilty pleading of Edgar to the lesser offense is of no merit. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code does not present any attenuating circumstance referring to a scenario wherein the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense (in this case, homicide). Furthermore, the accused did not secure the consent of the prosecution to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser offense (Sec. 2, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). The prosecution has consistently maintained its stand that murder, accompanied by the qualifying circumstance of treachery, must be imposed against Edgar. b.) The presence of a grenade being threatened to be used by the victim, as mentioned in another version of the facts prepared by Edgar, is not merited. The prosecution witnesses belied it and maintained that the victim was fast asleep and not in a belligerent manner against the accused. In fact, they claim that the attack was so unexpected, the two having been in good terms to each other prior to their drunkenness.