REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

LKASJDKFLJKLASDJKF
Complainant, NPS DOCKET No. 43580948538
For:
-versus- HOMICIDE

NATHANIEL AOWING DAWAGAN (Agoo, La Union)

Respondent.
*-----------------------------------------*

RESOLUTION

In the morning of 2 February 2019, the lifeless body of the victim – ULYSSES BAGUID DANGAYO
was found inside his rented room along #113 Escoda Street, First Road, Baguio City by the owner of the
building – RICHARD TOLDING. Thereafter, the processing of the crime scene, cadaver of the victim and
investigation on the matter ensured. It was established from the evidence gathered that:

The victim and herein respondent – NATHANIEL AOWING DAWAGAN were tenant and
receptionist of the building, and prior to the discovery of the victim’s body, on the requested CCTV
footage of River of Life Apartment extracted by Kyra Comelat Dacyon, NUP personnel of
this station, shows that at around 7:55 AM, the victim knocked at the door of Room 201
wherein Mr. Nathaniel Dawagan opened. They had a conversation and at around 8:00
AM Mr. Raymond Millare Ronquillo, 28 years old, born on January 3, 1991, single, nurse,
a native of San Juan, Abra who is occupying the adjacent room passed by them. Then
the two entered the room. At about 8:20 AM Mr. Dawagan left the room heading towards
the main entrance and left the premises towards main road driving a taxi with plate
number ______.

As to the identity of the respondent, the statements of MR ANDEL LIM NAMAN

[“ANDEL”], MR RAYMOND MILLARE RONQUILLO [“RAYMOND”], AND MR ERVY JYLE
GONZALES DAYOTE [“ERVY”] were also submitted. Specifically, ANDEL, owner of said
apartment, stated that Mr. Dawagan 25 years old, single, taxi driver, occupant of Room
201 and a native of Agoo, La Union, was a delinquent payor and was not able to pay his
rental bills for almost two months which prompted them to give last warning or else he will
be evicted. And RAYMOND, stated that at about 8:00 AM of February 2, 2019, he passed
by the victim and Mr. Nathaniel Dawagan who were having heated conversation due to
Mr. Dawagan’s delayed rental bills. However, he disregarded them and proceed on his
way to work. On the other hand, ERVY JYLE, at the station he disclosed that at about
8:30 AM of February 2, 2019, Mr. Dawagan suddenly returned his taxi at their residence
and noticed the right palm of the suspect wrapped with cloth with the presence of blood
like stains. After which, he immediately leave in a hurry and never reported to work and
can no longer be contacted.
 The AFFIDAVITS of PEMS Roselyn Todiano Calbayan were also submitted to aid
in the investigation on the matter, and basically for the identification of the respondent as
the suspect in the killing of the victim herein.

Further, apart from the photographs (purportedly of the victim and the respondent)
appended in the record, the AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT of the victim’s mother was also
submitted along with other proofs of her filiation with the victim. More importantly, the
DEATH CERTIFICATE of the victim was submitted with the following details therein as
follows:

CAUSE OF DEATH Interval Between Onset and Death

Immediate Cause : HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK MINUTES
Antecedent Cause : 2 STAB WOUNDS, MINUTES
CHEST AND UPPER RIGHT ABDOMEN
Underlying Cause : APPLIED FORCE FROM (nothing mentioned)
SHARP, POINTED OBJECT

Finally, the MEDICAL REPORT on the cadaver of the victim was also submitted
which indicated, among others, that the victim suffered 2 stab wounds in his chest, and
upper right abdomen which were “secondary” to the main cause of death which was
“Hemorrhagic Shock”.

A subpoena was sent to the respondent giving him the opportunity to submit his
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT or countervailing evidence. The return of the said subpoena
indicates that the same was not served because the respondent is nowhere to be found.

DISPOSITION

Primarily, it must be stressed that this Office is merely tasked with the
determination of the existence of probable cause to charge the respondent for the
alleged offense. In doing so, we are reminded that “Probable cause has been defined
as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Probable cause is
a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded on such a
state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution
and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
The term does not mean actual or positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It
is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. xxx

In the same manner, “A finding of probable cause needs only rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the suspects. It need
not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, not on evidence establishing
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute
certainty of guilt. In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of evidence of which he
has no technical knowledge. He relies on common sense. What is determined is wheter
there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It
does not require an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to secure a
conviction.

Yet, notwithstanding the above-stated, preliminary investigation is not too early a

stage to guard against any significant erosion af any respondent’s constitutional rights.
For indeed, a finding of probable cause by itself already subjects a respondent’s life,
liberty and/or properly to real risk of loss or diminution to say the least. On this note, we
are guided as well by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of ROLITO GO versus
COURT OF APPEALS that: “The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted
before being bound over for trial for a criminal offense, and hence formally risk of
incarceration or some penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right; it is a substantive
right. The accused in a criminal trial is inevitably exposed to prolonged anxiety,
aggravation, humiliation, not to speak of expense; xxx.” Thus, a preliminary
investigation should therefore be carefully conducted so that the constitutional right to
liberty of a potential accused can be protected from a possible material damage.

Upon the foregoing premises, after a careful examination of the pieces of

evidence submitted and taking into account the death of countervailing evidence on the
part of the respondent and the waiver on his part to present any, we find sufficient
probable cause to charge herein respondent for a felony. However, the same should
only for HOMICIDE, rather than MURDER as originally charged against the respondent.

In order that a charge foe HOMICIDE may be had, the following elements must
be established at least for purposes of probable cause, to wit: (a) a person was killed;
(b) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the
intention to kill, which is presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by the of Parricide or Infanticide.

Here, it is clear from the foregoing that the victim-ULYSSES BANGUID

DANGAYO was killed on 2 February 2019 when his lifeless body was found. An
autopsy examination of the victim’s body as contained in the Medico Legal Report
would reveal that the cause of death is “Hemorrhagic Shock secondary to 2 stab
wounds, chest and upper right abdomen. Xxx which were far from being self-inflicted. It
also appears that the killing of the victim was neither parricide or infanticide.

It was also established that it was herein respondent – NATHANIEL AOWING

DAWAGAN to have perpetrated the killing of the victim. Respondent is known as a
tenant of River of life Apartment prior to the latter’s death. In fact, respondent was the
last person to be with the victim sometime on 2 February 2019, and he was also
identified to have fled the crime scene after the incident.

More importantly, it appears that none among the aggravating circumstances

under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code was established. Nor was any of these
circumstances clearly shown in the Affidavits and other pieces of evidence submitted
before this Office for consideration.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being probable cause to do so, it is

hereby recommended that respondent NATHANIEL AOWING DAWAGAN indicated for
HOMICIDE under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

The INFORMATION containing the indictment of the accused is hereto attached

for approval.

Done this ___________

ROSELYN TADIANO CALBAYAN

Associate City Prosecutor
Roll No. 3242, 5 May 2019; Manila
OR No. 23423423 (provisional); 10 January 2019; Baguio-Benguet
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. VI - 32223

APPROVED:

DAKETAN RASID
City Prosecutor
Roll No. 32423
IBP Lifetime No. 2342342
MCLE Compliance No. V-234234

Copy furnished:

Party/Person/Office Address
1. PMSG ELMER CARAG - c/o BAGUIO CITY POLICE
OFFICE, Station 1, Naguilian
Road, Baguio City
2. ESTER WALANG - PA-O Kasibu, Nueva Viscaya
3. NATHANIEL AOWING DAWAGAN - Agoo, La Union