THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL DADIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Dadis

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Manuel Dadis, a criminal appeal from a conviction for killing Alfredo Estrelles with a rifle. The trial court called it murder and imposed life imprisonment. The Supreme Court keeps the conviction but lowers the classification to homicide, and the case matters because it shows, with unusual clarity, how the Court tests the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery against the actual facts, and how the location of the wounds on the victim's body can settle the question of whether the victim was advancing or fleeing when he was shot.

Procedural History

Dadis was charged before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur with the crime of murder. After trial, that court convicted him of murder, sentenced him to life imprisonment, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of Alfredo Estrelles in the sum of five thousand pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency owing to the nature of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. Dadis appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal in November 1966. There was no intermediate appellate step; the appeal went straight from the trial court to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the evening of May 10, 1954, between seven and eight o'clock, Alfredo Estrelles was walking near his house in the barrio of Baliwag, in the municipality of Lagonoy, province of Camarines Sur. Manuel Dadis, a member of the local police force, shot him with a rifle, inflicting two gunshot wounds that caused his death soon afterward from profuse acute hemorrhage. That much is not disputed.

The prosecution's version is that Estrelles heard someone nearby say "halt" and then cock his gun. Frightened, Estrelles began to run away. Dadis, standing beside a coconut tree near the road, then fired his rifle at the fleeing man. Santiago Zamudio, who was walking a few paces behind Estrelles, testified positively that Estrelles was running away from Dadis when the shot was fired.

The defense told a different story. Estrelles had threatened to shoot one Pedro Rivero, who filed a complaint, and the chief of police of Lagonoy ordered Dadis to go to Baliwag and disarm Estrelles. Dadis went to Rivero's house, learned Estrelles was not home, and decided to patrol the vicinity. Around eight o'clock he saw Estrelles coming toward him, took cover behind a coconut tree, and twice ordered him to halt. Estrelles ignored the warnings and advanced slowly, looking intently at Dadis, who fired into the air. When Estrelles then placed his right hand on the left side of his waist as if to draw a gun, Dadis fired, aiming at his legs.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in crediting the prosecution's version of the shooting over the defense's version.
• Whether or not the crime was qualified as murder by evident premeditation.
• Whether or not the crime was qualified as murder by treachery.
• Whether or not the crime committed was homicide only, and what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory text; it applies the concepts of evident premeditation and treachery as qualifying circumstances under the Revised Penal Code and the rules on the indeterminate penalty. The governing provisions, as the Court applies them, provide:

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides: There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

This bears on the case because the Court asked whether Dadis deliberately chose a mode of attack that removed all risk to himself, and answered that he did not.

Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code provides: There is evident premeditation when the offender has decided to commit the crime and persists in that decision, with a cold and calm mind, after sufficient time for reflection.

This bears on the case because the Court found that Dadis went to the scene by order of his administrative superior, not by a plan of his own formed in advance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's assessment of credibility. The defense theory was contradicted by the positive testimony of Santiago Zamudio that Estrelles was running away when shot, and Zamudio was walking a few paces behind Estrelles at the time. Dadis himself partly corroborated Zamudio by admitting he heard Estrelles run toward his left side. The location of the wounds clinched it: one wound was on the left side of the body about fifteen centimeters below the left armpit, and the other was at the right side of the middle part of the back. Even if the bullet entered through the left side below the armpit, as the autopsy certificate suggested, that fact shows Estrelles was not advancing toward Dadis when shot; otherwise the entry wound would have been on the front of his body.

On the second issue, the Court held that evident premeditation did not qualify the killing. Dadis had not acted with such premeditation, having gone to the scene by order of his administrative superior to disarm Estrelles.

On the third issue, the Court held that treachery was likewise absent. Although Estrelles, while running away, had no means of defending himself, Dadis did not purposely take advantage of this circumstance to kill him without danger to himself. Dadis believed Estrelles was armed with a gun, and the record strongly indicates that such was a fact, although it is certain Estrelles had not drawn it.

On the fourth issue, the Court concluded that Dadis was merely scared, and perhaps somewhat trigger happy, so the offense was no more than homicide. No modifying circumstance attended its perpetration, so the penalty should be imposed in its medium period.

Doctrine

Treachery requires that the offender deliberately employ means, methods, or forms of execution that tend directly and specially to insure the crime without risk to himself from the defense the victim might make. The mere fact that the victim was running away and could not defend himself does not amount to treachery where the offender did not purposely take advantage of that circumstance, especially where he believed the victim was armed.

Evident premeditation requires a decision to commit the crime formed in advance, with sufficient time for reflection. It is not present where the accused went to the scene in compliance with an order of his administrative superior rather than by a plan of his own.

The location and direction of the victim's wounds are competent evidence of his position at the time of the shooting, and may corroborate or refute testimony about whether he was advancing toward or fleeing from the assailant.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court was modified: Dadis was convicted of homicide, not murder, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty from ten years of prision mayor to seventeen years of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of Alfredo Estrelles in the sum of six thousand pesos, and to pay the costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that treachery is not present where the offender did not purposely take advantage of the victim's defenselessness, and evident premeditation is not present where the accused acted on his superior's order rather than on a plan of his own. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between murder and homicide, and to show how physical evidence such as wound location can defeat a claim of self-defense or of an advancing victim.