Mitigating Circumstances

People vs. Taraya

Facts: Prosec Version: Mariano Adillo a co-worker of the
victim Salvador Reyes in a sash factory, testified that he had
known Salvador for two months. At about 10:00 p.m. of 24
September 1995, he, Salvador and three other companions
were in a beer house in Famy, Laguna. Salvador drank his beer
outside the pub and was in a conversation with a girl. Both
were within the view of Mariano. Later, Salvador was
approached and surrounded by three men, one of them faced
him while the two others positioned themselves behind him.
Mariano hollered at the men, who immediately left.
Half an hour later Mariano went out, but Salvador was
nowhere in sight. At about 11:00 p.m., Mariano and a boy
searched for him up to a billiard hall which was about 200
meters away. They returned to the beer house and he
instructed the boy to hail a tricycle for his ride home. When no
tricycle could be found he and a companion walked
home.3 The following day he learned of Salvadors death.4
Defense Version: Domingo Decena was at home and watching
a television show on the night of 24 September 1995 and until
2:00 a.m. of the following day. Thereafter, he left the house to
go to his brothers place to sleep. While he was walking along
the street, he saw another person who was also walking and
holding an iron pipe about one and a half feet long. He later
learned that the man was Salvador Reyes. He also saw
AMPIE. When AMPIE came face to face with Salvador, the
latter tried to hit AMPIE once with the pipe, but AMPIE was
able to duck and avoid being hit by the pipe. AMPIE retaliated
by hacking Salvador with a bolo. Salvador ran away, followed
behind by AMPIE. Frightened with what he saw, Domingo
rushed back to his house. Twenty-five minutes later he saw a
commotion outside and learned that Salvador was found dead
twenty meters away from AMPIEs house.13

following month, October, and a warrant of arrest was issued

the day after. He admitted the killing under claim of selfdefense, it cannot be believed that he was unaware of the
filing of the case. The trial court concluded that the purpose of
AMPIEs visit to the police station on 9 October 1995,
accompanied by his sister, was not to surrender but to verify
the charge filed against him
Issue: is whether AMPIE is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Rule: No. The following are the requisites of voluntary
surrender: (1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to
the latter's agent; (3) the surrender was voluntary; and (4)
there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed. 34 For
a surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and must
also show the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble
and expense incidental to his search and capture.35
It cannot be denied that when AMPIE learned that the police
authorities were looking for him in connection with the death
of Salvador Reyes, he immediately went to the police station
on 9 October 1995. It was there where he confessed to killing
Salvador in self-defense. This is bolstered by the testimony of
the investigating officer SPO2 Emmanuel Martinez, who even
entered in the police blotter that AMPIE voluntarily
surrendered to the police. However, the said surrender does
not constitute one which would classify as a mitigating
circumstance. It must be emphasized that at the time of his
surrender, AMPIE already had a pending warrant of
arrest36 which was issued on 4 October 1995, or five days
before his surrender. His arrest by that time was imminent. We
cannot then appreciate in favor of AMPIE the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Rosario De vera vs Geren De vera

SPO2 Emmanuel Martinez was among the policemen who

arrived at the scene of the crime. The body of Salvador Reyes
was found some ten yards from the house of David Angeles,
Jr. Accused-appellants were implicated by an eyewitness to the
death of Salvador. ARLY and JONAR were immediately
incarcerated while AMPIE, accompanied by his sister,
surrendered at the police station on 9 October 1997. He
recorded in the police blotter the date and time of AMPIEs
surrender. AMPIE admitted that he killed Salvador, but alleged
that he did so in self-defense. Martinez then discontinued the
investigation and advised AMPIE to avail of the services of a
lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office.15
RTC: Guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery
The trial court ruled that AMPIE could not benefit
from the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Salvador Reyes was killed on 24 September 1995. The
complaint for murder was filed on the third day of the

Facts: Petitioner Rosario T. de Vera accused her spouse Geren

A. de Vera (Geren) and Josephine F. Juliano (Josephine) of
Bigamy. They were thus indicted in an Information, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 31st day of July, 2003, in the
Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused Geren A. De Vera being previously united in lawful
marriage with Rosario Carvajal Tobias-De Vera, and without
said marriage having been legally dissolved, did, then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second
marriage with accused Josephine Juliano y Francisco, who
likewise has previous knowledge that accused Geren A. De
Veras previous marriage with Rosario T. De Vera is still valid
and subsisting, said second marriage having all the essential
requisites for its validity.

Upon arraignment, Geren pleaded "Guilty." However, in a

Motion4 dated April 8, 2005, he prayed that he be allowed to
withdraw his plea in the meantime in order to prove the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The motion
was opposed5 by petitioner on the ground that not all the
elements of the mitigating circumstance of "voluntary
surrender" were present. She added that "voluntary surrender"
was raised only as an afterthought, as Geren had earlier
invoked a "voluntary plea of guilty" without raising the
former. Finally, she posited that since the case was ready for
promulgation, Gerens motion should no longer be entertained.
RTC & CA: Granted the Mitigating circumstance
Issue: WON elements of Voluntary Surrender are present.
Rule: Yes. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the
following requisites should be present: 1) the offender has not
been actually arrested; 2) the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or the latters agent; and 3) the surrender
was voluntary.24 The essence of voluntary surrender is
spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up
and submit himself to the authorities either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the
trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and
capture.25 Without these elements, and where the clear reasons
for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of arrest and
the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not spontaneous
and, therefore, cannot be characterized as "voluntary
surrender" to serve as a mitigating circumstance.26

People vs Dawaton
The evidence for the prosecution: On 20 September 1998
Esmeraldo Cortez was entertaining visitors in his house in
Sitio Garden, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan, Aurora. His brother-inlaw Edgar Dawaton and kumpadre Leonides Lavares dropped
by at about 12:00 o'clock noon followed by Domingo Reyes
shortly after. All three (3) guests of Esmeraldo were residents
of Sitio Garden. They started drinking soon after. At about
3:30 in the afternoon, twenty (20) minutes after Leonides had
gone to sleep, Edgar stood up and left for his house. When he
returned he brought with him a stainless knife with a blade 2
to 3 inches long. Without a word, he approached Leonides
who was sleeping and stabbed him near the base of his neck.
[4]
Awakened and surprised, Leonides got up and blurted:
"Bakit Pare, bakit?"[5] Instead of answering, Edgar again
stabbed Leonides on the upper part of his neck, spilling blood
on Leonides' arm.
Leonides attempted to flee but Edgar who was much
bigger grabbed the collar of his shirt and thus effectively
prevented him from running away. Edgar then repeatedly
stabbed Leonides who, despite Edgar's firm hold on him, was
still able to move about twenty (20) meters away from the
house of Amado Dawaton before he fell to the ground at the
back of Esmeraldo's house. But even then, Edgar still
continued to stab him. Edgar only stopped stabbing Leonides
when the latter already expired. Edgar then ran away towards
the house of his uncle Carlito Baras situated behind the
cockpit.

In Taraya, when the accused learned that the police authorities

were looking for him (because of a warrant for his arrest), he
immediately went to the police station where he confessed that
he killed the victim. Notwithstanding such surrender and
confession to the police, the Court refused to appreciate the
mitigating circumstance in his favour

By then, Leonides was already dead and people had already

gathered at the site. The mayor who was in a nearby cement
factory arrived and instructed them not to go near the
body. They pointed to the direction where Edgar fled. Edgar
was later arrested at the house of his uncle, Carlito Baras, at
Sitio Aves, Brgy. Paltic, Dingalan.

In this case, it appears that the Information was filed with the
RTC on February 24, 2005. On March 1, 2005, the court
issued an Order finding probable cause for the accused to
stand trial for the crime of bigamy and for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. In the afternoon of the same day, Geren
surrendered to the court and filed a motion for reduction of
bail. After the accused posted bail, there was no more need for
the court to issue the warrant of arrest.30

Version of the accused: In Edgar's version of the stabbing

incident, a drunk and angry Leonides arrived at about 2:30 in
the afternoon and demanded that they - he and Edgar - return
candles (magbalikan [tayo] ng kandila).[6] Leonides was
godfather of a son of Edgar. Leonides also cursed and
threatened to hang a grenade on Edgar (P - t - ng ina
mo. Hintayin mo ako. Kukuha ako ng granada at sasabitan
kita!).[7]

The foregoing circumstances clearly show the voluntariness of

the surrender. As distinguished from the earlier cases, upon
learning that the court had finally determined the presence of
probable cause and even before the issuance and
implementation of the warrant of arrest, Geren already gave
himself up, acknowledging his culpability. This was bolstered
by his eventual plea of guilt during the arraignment. Thus, the
trial court was correct in appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of "voluntary surrender."

According to Edgar, he tried to calm down Leonides but

the latter insisted on going home purportedly to get a
grenade. Alarmed because he knew Leonides had a grenade,
Edgar went home to look for a bladed weapon. He already had
a knife with him but he thought it was short. Not finding
another weapon, he returned to Esmeraldo's house.

Issue: WON Mitigating circumstances are present in this case.

To wit;
(1) Voluntary surrender
(2) Passion or obfuscation
Rule: (1) No. Nor can the accused avail of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender as he himself admitted
that he was arrested at his uncle's residence. [18] The following
elements must be present for voluntary surrender to be
appreciated: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority, and,
(c) the surrender must be voluntary.[19]
Resorting to sophistry, the accused argues that he was not
arrested but "fetched" as he voluntarily went with the
policemen when they came for him. This attempt at semantics
is futile and absurd. That he did not try to escape or resist
arrest after he was taken into custody by the authorities did not
amount to voluntary surrender. A surrender to be voluntary
must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to
save them the trouble and expense necessarily included in his
search and capture.[20] It is also settled that voluntary surrender
cannot be appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that
it was the authorities who came looking for the accused.[21]
Moreover, the evidence submitted by the prosecution
belies the claim of the accused that he intended to submit
himself to the authorities. The joint affidavit of the arresting
officers, the veracity of which was admitted by the parties and
evidenced by a 20 October 1999 Order of the trial court,
revealed that they chanced upon the accused trying to escape
from the rear of the cockpit building when they came looking
for him.[22]
(2) Similarly, there is no factual basis to credit the
accused with the mitigating circumstance of outraged feeling
analogous or similar[23] to passion and obfuscation.[24] Other
than his self-serving allegations, there was no evidence that
the victim threatened him with a grenade. Domingo Reyes and
Esmeraldo Cortez testified that there was no prior altercation
or disagreement between Edgar and Leonides during the
drinking spree, and they did not know of any reason for
Edgar's hostility and violence. On the contrary, Esmeraldo
Cortez even recalled seeing the two (2) in a playful banter
(lambingan) during the course of their drinking [25] indicating
that the attack on the accused was completely unexpected.
Canta vs People
Facts: Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister Erlinda
Monter a cow, subject of the case, upon its birth on March 10,
1984. The cow remained under the care of Erlinda Monter for
sometime. Subsequently, Narciso gave the care and custody of

the animal, first, to Generoso Cabonce, from October 24, 1984

to March 17, 1985; then to Maria Tura, from May 17, 1985 to
March 2, 1986; and lastly, to Gardenio Agapay, from March 3,
1986 until March 14, 1986 when it was lost. 4 It appears that at
5 o'clock in the afternoon of March 13, 1986, Agapay took the
cow to graze in the mountain of Pilipogan in Barangay
Candatag, about 40 meters from his hut. However, when he
came back for it at past 9 o'clock in the morning of March 14,
1986, Agapay found the cow gone. He found hoof prints
which led to the house of Filomeno Vallejos. He was told that
petitioner Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal.5
Hence, Narciso Gabriel reported the matter to the police of
Malitbog, Southern Leyte.6 As a result, Narciso and petitioner
Exuperancio were called to an investigation. Petitioner
admitted taking the cow but claimed that it was his and that it
was lost on December 3, 1985. He presented two certificates
of ownership, one dated March 17, 1986 and another dated
February 27, 1985, to support his claim (Exh. B).7
Narciso presented a certificate of ownership issued on March
9, 1986, signed by the municipal treasurer, in which the cow
was described as two years old and female. On the other hand,
petitioner claimed he acquired the animal under an agreement
which he had with Pat. Diosdado Villanueva, that petitioner
take care of a female cow of Pat. Villanueva in consideration
for which petitioner would get a calf if the cow produced two
offsprings. Petitioner claimed that the cow in question was his
share and that it was born on December 5, 1984. This cow,
however, was lost on December 2, 1985. Petitioner said he
reported the loss to the police of Macrohon, Padre Burgos, and
Malitbog, on December 3, 1985 (Exh. A and Exh. 1).10
RTC: Convicted for the violation of PD 533 (Anti-Cattle
rustling law)
CA: Affirmed
Raised in Appeal by the petitioner; He immediately turned
over the cow to the barangay captain, after taking it, and later
to the police authorities, after a dispute arose as to its
ownership;
Issue: WON Petitioner entitled for mitigating circumstance?
Rule: Yes. First, accused-appellant should be given the benefit
of the mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender. The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the
following elements: (1) the offender has not actually been
arrested; (2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority or
to the latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary.26 In the
present case, petitioner Exuperancio Canta had not actually
been arrested. In fact, no complaint had yet been filed against
him when he surrendered the cow to the authorities. It has
been repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary, there
must be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the
authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the

trouble and expense that his search and capture would

require.27In petitioner's case, he voluntarily took the cow to the
municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in
the custody of the authorities and thus saved them the trouble
of having to recover the cow from him. This circumstance can
be considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should be
considered in favor of petitioner.

Both petitioner and Lonzanida voluntarily surrendered and

posted their respective cash bonds.
SB: Considering the absence of any aggravating circumstance
and the presence of two mitigating circumstances, viz.,
accused Legramas voluntary surrender and partial restitution
of the amount involved in the instant case. Convicted of
Malversation of public funds.

Legrama vs People
Issue: WON Voluntary surrender is appreciated in this case.
Facts: The Commission on Audit (COA) for the Province of
Zambales issued PAO Office No. 96-09 to conduct an
examination of the cash and account of petitioner Cecilia
Legrama, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of San
Antonio, Zambales.
After the audit, the COA prepared a Special Cash Examination
Report on the Cash and Accounts of Ms. Cecilia U.
Legrama4 dated October 1, 1996. The report contained the
findings that petitioners cash accountability was short
of P289,022.75 and that there was an unaccounted Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA) in the amount ofP863,878.00,
thereby showing a total shortage in the amount
of P1,152,900.75. Included in the shortage is the amount
of P709,462.80, representing the total amount of various sales
invoices, chits, vales, and disbursement vouchers, 5 which were
disallowed in the audit for lack of supporting documents.
From the total amount of the shortage, petitioner was able to
restitute the initial amount of P60,000.00,6
Consequently, petitioner and Romeo D. Lonzanida
(Lonzanida), the Municipal Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales
at the time the audit was conducted, were charged in an
Information7 dated December 15, 1998 with the crime of
Malversation of Public Funds. The accusatory portion of
which reads:

Rule: Yes. However, as aptly concluded by the

Sandiganbayan, petitioner enjoys the mitigating circumstances
of voluntary surrender and restitution. Although restitution is
akin to voluntary surrender,26 as provided for in paragraph
727 of Article 13, in relation to paragraph 10 28 of the same
Article of the Revised Penal Code, restitution should be
treated as a separate mitigating circumstance in favor of the
accused when the two circumstances are present in a case,
which is similar to instances where voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty are both present even though the two mitigating
circumstances are treated in the same paragraph 7, Article 13
of the Revised Penal Code.29Considering that restitution is also
tantamount to an admission of guilt on the part of the accused,
it was proper for the Sandiganbayan to have considered it as a
separate mitigating circumstance in favor of petitioner.