People of the Philippines vs. Dario Roldan

A plea of guilty to an information admits all the material facts alleged therein, including any aggravating circumstance charged, and dispenses with the prosecution's separate presentation of evidence on those facts; a claim of voluntary surrender must be proved and is not voluntary where it occurs only after a warrant of arrest has been served.

Dario Roldan was prosecuted for serious physical injuries under Article 263, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code for injuries allegedly inflicted on Manuel Apolonio. The offense is defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, and the case was appealed from the Court of First Instance of Aklan.

On or about August 10, 1962, in the poblacion of Kalibo, Aklan, Dario Roldan was alleged to have attacked, assaulted, and boxed Manuel Apolonio, hitting the latter on the right eye, which was then covered with sunglasses. The Information charged that the blow broke the sunglasses and inflicted a lacerated wound, infraorbital, right; corneal laceration, right eye; and hematoma, palphebral and bulbar conjunctive, right. The injuries allegedly required medical attendance for not less than sixty-nine days and incapacitated Apolonio from engaging in his customary labor for the same period, with damages originally claimed at not less than P17,000.

Roldan was arraigned on December 4, 1962 and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. On January 31, 1963, his counsel moved for postponement of trial on the ground that Roldan wished to change his plea of not guilty to guilty and wanted to contact witnesses to prove sufficient mitigating circumstances. The trial court granted the request.

On July 9, 1963, the prosecution filed an Amended Information containing substantially the same allegations as the original, except that the damages claimed were reduced to P2,000. The amended information was admitted, and after being apprised thereof, Roldan was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the charge.

The record of the preliminary investigation before the Justice of the Peace Court of Kalibo, Aklan showed that Roldan surrendered only after the warrant of arrest issued by that court was served upon him. The trial court considered the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against him and the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilt in his favor, but did not consider voluntary surrender.

• Evident Premeditation: Appellant argued that the lower court erred in considering against him the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation because, although it was charged in the Information to which he pleaded guilty, the prosecution was required to establish it by competent evidence in a trial so that he would not be deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, a right he could not have waived even by pleading guilty.
• Voluntary Surrender: Appellant contended that the lower court should have considered in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

• Evident Premeditation in a Plea of Guilty: Whether a plea of guilty to an information admits the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged therein, such that the trial court may consider it without separate evidence and without violating the accused's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
• Voluntary Surrender: Whether the lower court erred in not considering voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.

• Evident Premeditation in a Plea of Guilty: Yes. A plea of guilty admits all material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation, so no separate evidentiary trial on that circumstance was required.
• Voluntary Surrender: No. Voluntary surrender was not established; the record showed surrender only after the warrant of arrest was served, which is not voluntary.

• Evident Premeditation in a Plea of Guilty: When Roldan pleaded guilty, he was understood to have done so fully cognizant of the consequences of his act. It was presumed that he had carefully read the charge beforehand, and his plea signified admission of all material facts alleged therein, including the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. This was especially so because, with the aid of counsel, he had requested and been granted sufficient time to think over his desire to change his original plea of not guilty to guilty, and the prosecution, with the apparent concurrence of the offended party, had reduced the damages claimed from P17,000 to P2,000. No suggestion appeared in the record that Roldan was beguiled into admitting guilt by any promise from the prosecution, and the trial court properly considered evident premeditation against him.
• Voluntary Surrender: The claim of voluntary surrender lacked merit. Roldan had been granted sufficient time to prepare for trial upon his own manifestation that he wanted to contact witnesses to prove sufficient mitigating circumstances, but there was no showing that he offered any evidence that he had voluntarily surrendered. Moreover, the record of the preliminary investigation before the Justice of the Peace Court of Kalibo, Aklan, which was legally before the court, showed that Roldan surrendered only after the warrant of arrest issued by that court was served upon him. Such surrender could not be considered voluntary. Consequently, the lower court correctly considered only the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilt, which offset the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

• Plea of Guilty Admits All Material Facts Alleged — A plea of guilty to an information is an admission of all the material facts alleged therein, including any aggravating circumstance charged. The prosecution need not separately establish those facts by evidence, and the accused cannot claim deprivation of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses as to facts admitted by the plea. In this case, Roldan's guilty plea admitted the allegation of evident premeditation, so the trial court could consider it against him.
• Voluntary Surrender — To be considered a mitigating circumstance, surrender must be voluntary. A surrender made only after a warrant of arrest has been served is not voluntary. Here, the record showed that Roldan surrendered only after the warrant of arrest issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Kalibo was served on him, and he offered no evidence to prove voluntary surrender; hence, the mitigating circumstance was not credited.
• Offsetting of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances — Where an aggravating circumstance and a mitigating circumstance are present, they may offset each other in the determination of the penalty. In this case, the mitigating circumstance of Roldan's plea of guilt offset the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

• "When he pleaded guilty to the charge against him, it is understood that he did so fully cognizant of the consequences of his act; it must be presumed that he had carefully read beforehand the charge against him; and when he pleaded guilty thereto, he signified his admission of all the material facts alleged therein, including the allegation of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation (see, People vs. Sabilul, L-3765, June 21, 1951)." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the effect of a plea of guilty, holding that it admits even the aggravating circumstance alleged in the information.
• "Moreover, from the record of the proceeding had before the Justice of the Peace Court of Kalibo, Aklan, which conducted the preliminary investigation of the case, and which is legally before the court, it appears that herein appellant surrendered only after the warrant of arrest issued by the said Justice of the Peace was served upon him, which can not be considered as a "voluntary surrender"." — This passage defines the factual basis for rejecting voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.
• "Consequently, the lower court was right in considering in favor of herein appellant only the mitigating circumstance of his "plea of guilt" which offset the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation." — This passage explains the offsetting of the mitigating plea of guilt against the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
• "Finding the decision appealed from in accordance with law, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against herein appellant." — This is the dispositive portion of the Supreme Court's decision.

• People vs. Sabilul, L-3765, June 21, 1951 — Cited by the Court to support the rule that a plea of guilty admits all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

• Article 263, paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the crime of Serious Physical Injuries under which Dario Roldan was convicted. The Court affirmed the conviction under this provision.

Concepcion, C.J.; Reyes, J.B.L.; Dizon; Makalintal; Zaldivar; Sanchez; and Castro, JJ., concurred. Fernando, J., was on leave.