G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DARIO ROLDAN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Dario Roldan, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Aklan with Serious Physical Injuries under Article 263, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on August 10, 1962, in Kalibo, Aklan, with evident premeditation and without provocation, he willfully assaulted Manuel Apolonio by boxing him, hitting his right eye which was covered by sunglasses. The assault caused specific eye injuries (lacerated wound, corneal laceration, and hematoma) requiring medical attendance for not less than 69 days and incapacitating the victim for the same period, with damages initially claimed at P17,000. The accused initially pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, his counsel moved for postponement, stating the accused wished to change his plea to guilty and contact witnesses to prove mitigating circumstances. The prosecution later filed an Amended Information, reducing the claimed damages to P2,000. The accused was re-arraigned under this amended information and pleaded guilty. The trial court rendered a decision finding him guilty, considering the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt, and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from 4 months minimum to 1 year and 8 months maximum, plus indemnity and costs.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against the accused despite his plea of guilty without the prosecution presenting evidence to prove it.
2. Whether the trial court should have considered the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of the accused.

RULING

1. The trial court did not err in considering the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. By pleading guilty to the Amended Information, which specifically alleged evident premeditation, the accused admitted all material facts alleged therein, including that aggravating circumstance. This is especially true as the accused, assisted by counsel, had requested and was granted time to consider changing his plea, and the prosecution reduced the damages claimed. There was no showing he was induced by any promise, and he cannot complain about the consequence of his voluntary plea.
2. The trial court correctly did not consider voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance. The record shows the accused was given time to present evidence on mitigating circumstances but did not offer any to prove voluntary surrender. Furthermore, the record from the Justice of the Peace Court, which conducted the preliminary investigation, indicates the accused surrendered only after a warrant of arrest was served on him, which does not constitute voluntary surrender. Therefore, the only mitigating circumstance properly considered was the plea of guilt, which offset the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. The decision of the trial court was affirmed.