CASE NO.

178
ARTICLE XIII: Mitigating Circumstances
Surrender or Confession of Guilt
People vs. Fontabla, 61 Phil 589

MAIN POINT:
The voluntary surrender of the accused to the authorities as well as voluntary
confession of guilt prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution are
mitigating circumstances under Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS:
The appellant Severo Fontabla was charged with having treacherously and
premeditatedly killed Agaton Punzalan. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty. The court,
however, permitted him to testify in order to see whether or not a mitigating
circumstance was present in the commission of the crime. After hearing his testimony,
the Court declared him guilty of murder and, taking into consideration in his favor the
mitigating circumstance of having pleaded guilty, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua,
to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P500, and to pay the costs. The
court, in imposing upon the appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the
medium period of that prescribed by law, took into consideration the mitigating
circumstance of having pleaded guilty, which compensated for the aggravating
circumstance of premeditation alleged in the information. However, it further appears
that the appellant, after the commission of the crime, voluntarily surrendered himself to
the authorities.

ISSUE:
Whether there is a mitigating circumstance in this case.

ANSWER:
Yes. Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code considers the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender to the authorities as well as voluntary confession of guilt prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Under the law, any of these facts
constitutes mitigating circumstance. Although these circumstances are considered
mitigating in the Article 13 (7), when both are present they should have the effect of
mitigating the penalty as two independent circumstances. If any of them must mitigate
the penalty to a certain extent, when both are present, they should produce this effect to
a greater extent. Inasmuch as two mitigating circumstances and only one aggravating
circumstance were present in the commission of the crime, the penalty prescribed by
law should be imposed in its minimum period.

CONCLUSION:
Since voluntary surrender to the authorities as well as voluntary confession of guilt prior
to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution are mitigating circumstances
under Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code, the imprisonment period of Severo
Fontabla shall be lowered from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal.
 CASE NO. 179
ARTICLE XIII: Mitigating Circumstances
Surrender or Confession of Guilt
Estacio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 75362

MAIN POINT:
A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either (1) because he acknowledges hi
guilty, or (2) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily
incurred in his search and capture.

FACTS:
The Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Jesus Estacio as a co-principal of the crime of
Estafa through Falsification of Public/Commercial Documents. Petitioner now moves to
reconsider before the Supreme Court to set aside and reverse the decision of the
Sandiganbayan on the ground that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that he
committed the crimes charged principally because his extrajudicial confessions were
inadmissible in evidence as their right to counsel was violated when said confessions
were executed. In the alternative, petitioner asserts that if he was indeed guilty, his
criminal liability should only be as an accessory or an accomplice; and he should be
credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.

ANSWER:
No. The Court ruled that the extrajudicial confessions were valid and admissible. Under
Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender may properly be appreciated in favor of the accused when the following
requisites concur: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and
(c) the surrender was voluntary.

In this case, the foregoing requisites were not present. The Court ruled that Estacio
cannot invoke the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. When he went to the
NBI, it was in obedience to the order of his superior, Atty. Agapito Fajardo, the then
officer-in-charge of the Anti-Bank Fraud Unit of the Central Bank. Neither did he go to
the NBI to place himself at the disposal of the authorities. In other words, he went there
not spontaneously with intent to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities
because he acknowledged his guilt or wished to save the authorities the time and
trouble of searching for him.

CONCLUSION:
Petitioner Estacio was not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
because the requisites were not established. Motion for reconsideration is denied.