People v. Dimdiman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On October 31, 1956, in Bukidnon, the accused Pedro Dimdiman, armed with a Japanese saber, committed robbery with multiple homicide. He assaulted and killed five individuals: Menonio Gaylon (7 years old), Maria Abogan (48 years old), Lestina Gaaynon (20 years old), Lestina's 6-day-old infant Ernita Sucatan, and Inay Tomok (over 60 years old). The accused also took P700.00 in cash. The information alleged aggravating circumstances of disregard of respect due to age and sex, treachery, and killing inside a dwelling. Procedural History: The accused was charged with robbery with multiple homicide. He initially pleaded guilty, then withdrew it for not guilty, and later re-entered a guilty plea. The trial court, despite the guilty plea, required the presentation of evidence. The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, appreciating treachery and dwelling as aggravating circumstances, but discounting disregard of respect due to age and sex. The mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty was considered. The accused was sentenced to death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, and to pay for the stolen money and costs. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review of the death sentence. The attorney de oficio contended that the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance and recommended commutation of the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should have been appreciated in favor of the accused. Whether the penalty of death imposed by the trial court is in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, upholding the death sentence imposed upon the accused. The Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender could not be appreciated in favor of the accused, and the penalty of death was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of voluntary surrender: The Supreme Court held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender could not be appreciated in favor of the accused. The Court reasoned that the accused's actions after the commission of the crime demonstrated a clear intent to evade justice rather than to surrender. He rode a gravel truck, then a passenger jeepney, and even got off when he saw a policeman, continuing his journey in another vehicle. He proceeded to his cousin's house and stayed there for several days without reporting the crime. When apprehended by the barrio lieutenant, he lied about his whereabouts and intentions, claiming to be looking for a lost cow, and avoided the Constabulary. The Court reiterated that mere non-resistance to arrest does not constitute voluntary surrender, and the accused had multiple opportunities to surrender but chose to hide and evade authorities. Therefore, the trial court did not err in disallowing this mitigating circumstance. On the penalty imposed: The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling were properly appreciated, while the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty was considered. The Court noted that in cases involving grave crimes, especially those punishable by death, a plea of guilty does not preclude the presentation of evidence to establish guilt and attendant circumstances. The evidence presented, including the accused's own sworn statement and reenactment, overwhelmingly established his guilt for robbery with multiple homicide. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling, coupled with the heinous nature of the crime, justified the imposition of the death penalty, which was in accordance with law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence for robbery with multiple homicide, finding that treachery and dwelling were aggravating circumstances, while voluntary surrender and lack of instruction were not mitigating circumstances. The Court emphasized that a plea of guilty, while mitigating, does not automatically warrant a lesser penalty when grave crimes are involved, and evidence must still be presented to establish guilt and attendant circumstances.