G.R. No. L-14388; May 20, 1960
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMILIANO DAYRIT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Emiliano Dayrit, was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Baguio. The crime occurred on April 13, 1955, near gasoline stations at Burnham Park. Dayrit and his wife were selling cigarettes when Napoleon Ananayo and three companions approached. Ananayo, under the influence of liquor, tried to buy cigarettes from Dayrit’s wife, found the price too expensive, pushed her to the ground, and an altercation ensued. During the altercation, Dayrit drew a “balisong” knife and stabbed Ananayo in the neck, causing his death. Dayrit fled to the Imperial Hotel, where he dropped the knife at the door. When police arrived to investigate, he admitted ownership of the knife and voluntarily went with them to the City Jail. He was hiding from the deceased’s companions, not from the police. No warrant of arrest was issued. The trial court found the mitigating circumstance of provocation by the deceased but did not find voluntary surrender. Dayrit appealed, not contesting his guilt but seeking a reduction of his penalty, arguing for an additional mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in addition to the mitigating circumstance of provocation already found by the trial court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision. It held that Dayrit was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The Court reasoned that his flight to the Imperial Hotel was for security from the deceased’s companions, not from the authorities. Upon the police’s arrival, he admitted ownership of the weapon and voluntarily accompanied them. No warrant was issued, and he submitted himself unconditionally the same night of the incident. This conduct showed an intent to submit to authorities and save them the trouble of search and capture, consistent with jurisprudence (People vs. Sakam; People vs. Torrecampo; People vs. Yecla; People vs. Babiera). The Court rejected Dayrit’s claim of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, as the weapon used was deadly. With two mitigating circumstances (provocation and voluntary surrender) and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty was reduced by one degree under Article 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. The Court sentenced Dayrit to an indeterminate penalty of not less than two (2) years, eleven (11) months, and eleven (11) days of prision correccional to not more than eight (8) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, while affirming the indemnity and costs.