Article by:
Philippine News Agency
MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) en banc on Thursday clarified that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender must be evaluated based on the person’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances.
The clarification was made after the high court granted a man’s petition to reduce his sentence for bigamy charges after 13 years.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC recognized the man’s voluntary surrender after he learned of an arrest warrant issued against him.
“The man went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for clearance. During processing, his name registered a ‘hit,’ showing he had a pending case. He admitted this to the NBI officer,” the SC said in a news release.
The NBI instructed him to return after one week, and when he came back, it was confirmed that he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued 13 years ago.
“He then told the officer, ‘masuko na lang ako’ (I will surrender) and asked help in posting bail. The arrest warrant was then served on him,” the SC said.
During arraignment, the accused first pleaded not guilty but later entered into a plea bargain, asking the court to consider his voluntary surrender and guilty plea.
The Court of Appeals earlier affirmed a Regional Trial Court decision that the man did not voluntarily surrender but went to the NBI “to apply for clearance, and that when he said he would surrender, he had no choice because he was already inside the NBI office.”
The SC disagreed, citing Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that “voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been arrested; they surrendered themselves to a person in authority or its agent; and the surrender was voluntary.”
The SC emphasized that if he intended to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI.
“While his first visit was to secure a clearance, his decision to return despite knowing there might be an active case shows his willingness to cooperate with the authorities,” the SC said.
The SC also clarified that while he knew about the pending case, there was no proof that he knew a warrant for his arrest had already been issued.
It also noted the absence of any attempt to flee, his open use of his real name, and the fact that he returned to the NBI on his own.
The SC ruled that voluntary surrender must be viewed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established.
The high court also reminded judges to avoid making quick or premature conclusions.
“What the Court asks and expects of magistrates on the frontlines of justice is to adjudge each case wholly, fully, and fairly as discerning persons learned in the law and literate in life experience, and not as cold-hearted automatons or soulless supercomputers, for even a single judge’s role in the administration of our penal laws can indeed have far-reaching consequences for the parties and for human society as a whole... The law may be harsh, but it need not be harsher,” the court said.
The man’s sentence was reduced from a maximum of six years to a maximum of four years in prison. (Benjamin Pulta/PNA)
Log in with Google