The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance must be determined based on an accused’s intent and the totality of the circumstances, not solely on how an arrest is documented.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the High Court reduced the sentence of a man convicted of bigamy after finding that he had voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
Court records showed the accused initially went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for a clearance, where a records “hit” revealed a pending case. He acknowledged the case and was told to return after verification.
When he returned a week later, he was informed of a 13-year-old arrest warrant related to a bigamy charge. He then told an NBI officer that he intended to surrender and asked for help in posting bail. The warrant was subsequently served.
Although the NBI later issued a certificate stating that the accused had voluntarily surrendered, the return of the warrant and release order described him as “arrested.”
The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused and credited his plea of guilt but rejected his voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, citing the wording of the arrest documents and the long pendency of the case.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, saying that he went to the NBI to secure a clearance and had no real choice once inside the office.
The Supreme Court disagreed, citing Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, which requires that an accused surrender voluntarily to a person in authority before arrest and without showing intent to evade authorities.
The Court found that the accused expressed his intent to surrender before the warrant was served, surrendered to an NBI officer, and showed no attempt to flee. It also noted that there was no proof he knew a warrant had been issued and that he used his real name and returned on his own.
The ruling stressed that a voluntary surrender should be assessed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt is established. The accused’s maximum prison term was reduced from six to four years.