G.R. No. 146247.

September 17, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,

v.
EDGAR DAWATON, accused.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

TOPIC: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: {Note: Siguro choose na lang which topic and corresponding issue you want to write
down in your digest. All topics listed below are part of the case in its full text}
1. Plea of Guilty or Confession of Guilt (Parag. 7, Art. 13)
2. Voluntary Surrender (Parag. 7, Art. 13)
3. Passion & Obfuscation (Parag. 6, Art. 13)

FACTS:
The accused, during a drinking spree with the victim Leonides Lavares together with witnesses Domingo Reyes and
Esmeraldo Cortez, got a knife and suddenly stabbed the victim while the latter was sleeping in front of them. The victim ran
away from accused but the latter caught up with him and continued to stab the same resulting in his death. The accused
thereafter ran to his uncle’s house and was there arrested by responding policemen.

Accused was found by the trial court guilty of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced to death. The accused
did not deny that he stabbed the victim but insisted that he was provoked into stabbing him. When first arraigned, accused
pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, but during pre-trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide
which was rejected by the prosecution.

ISSUE:
1. WON Plea of Guilty is a Mitigating Circumstance in favor of accused. (NO)
2. WON Voluntary Surrender is a Mitigating Circumstance in favor of accused. (NO)
3. WON Passion & Obfuscation is a Mitigating Circumstance in favor of accused. (NO)

RULING:
On the first issue, the Court ruled that the accused cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of Plea of Guilty. 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. The Court had 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 RPC because to be voluntary, the plea of guilty must be
to the offense charged.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the accused cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender as he himself admitted that he was arrested at his uncle's residence. 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. 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. A surrender to be voluntary must be
spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. 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. The evidence submitted by the prosecution belies the claim of the accused that he intended to submit himself
to the authorities. The arresting officers testified that they chanced upon the accused trying to escape from the rear of the
cockpit building when they came looking for him.

On the third issue, the Court finds that there is no factual basis to credit the accused with the mitigating circumstance
of outraged feeling analogous or similar to passion and obfuscation. 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
the accused and the victim during the drinking spree, and they did not know of any reason for accused’s hostility and violence.