The Supreme Court (SC) has clarified how courts should determine whether an accused’s surrender qualifies as a mitigating circumstance, stressing that voluntary surrender must be assessed based on the offender’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances, not on rigid or technical indicators.
In a decision promulgated on February 19, the SC explained that voluntary surrender under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code should be evaluated with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established, cautioning judges against drawing hasty conclusions based solely on the existence of an arrest warrant or the manner by which the accused came into police custody.
The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, said voluntary surrender must reflect either the offender’s admission of guilt or a genuine desire to spare authorities the trouble and expense of locating and arresting them.
The Court emphasized that the presence of an unserved arrest warrant does not automatically negate voluntariness.
RULES ON VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
The ruling laid down guiding principles to aid trial courts in determining whether voluntary surrender should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
First, the Court said the issuance of an arrest warrant is separate from the act of surrender. While knowledge of a warrant coupled with attempts to evade arrest may negate voluntariness, the mere existence of a warrant does not.
Second, the lapse of time between the issuance of the warrant and the offender’s surrender cannot, by itself, defeat a claim of voluntary surrender. Courts must consider whether the accused showed signs of flight or lived as a fugitive.
Third, a high likelihood of arrest must be weighed together with evidence of intent to evade authorities, not simply inferred from the fact that a warrant had already been issued.
Fourth, the offender’s intention at the time of surrender must be evaluated alongside all surrounding circumstances. The Court clarified that an accused is not required to surrender at the earliest possible opportunity.
Finally, the Court stressed that if the records do not clearly establish voluntary surrender, any doubt cannot be resolved in favor of the accused.
CASE BACKGROUND
The clarification arose from a petition filed by a man convicted of bigamy, whose sentence was reduced after the Court recognized his voluntary surrender.
Records showed that the accused went to the National Bureau of Investigation to apply for clearance, where his name yielded a “hit” for a pending case.
After being advised to return once records were verified, he came back a week later, acknowledged the case, and expressed his intention to surrender before the arrest warrant was formally served.
Lower courts refused to consider his surrender voluntary, citing the warrant’s return stating that he was “arrested” and noting that the case had remained unresolved for 13 years.
The SC disagreed, ruling that his return to the NBI despite knowledge of a pending case, his use of his real name, and the absence of any attempt to flee demonstrated a willingness to submit to authorities.
The Court reduced his maximum prison sentence from six years to four years, applying voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
