G.R. No. L-28107 March 15, 1977
Verily, the trial judge had painstakingly
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
TOMAS NAVASCA, FLORENCIO GERALDES,
LORENZO SOBERANO and MANUEL
MARQUEZ, defendants.
SYLLABUS
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; REQUISITES. — The
requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) that the of
fender had not actually been arrested; (b) that the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
or the latter's agent; and (e) that the surrender was
voluntary.
VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY; REQUISITES. —
The requisites of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary plea of guilty are: (1) that the offender
spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the
confession of guilt was made in open court, that is,
before the competent court that is to try the case;
and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
FACTS
On December 18, 1962, Tomas Navasca, Florencio
Geraldes, Lorenzo Soberano and Manuel Marquez were
charged with the crime of robbery with homicide
committed by a band before the Court of First Instance
of Davao
At about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of March 17, 1959
on his way home after buying DDT for his corn, he saw
his co-accused sitting on the road by the river at Bo.
Rizal: Manuel Marquez holding a thompson, Tomas
Navasca armed with a pistol and Florencio Geraldes
carrying a carbine. He bought tuba as requested by
Navasca and after the same was consumed by Navasca
and Geraldes, he was invited to go with the group to
serenade. On their way, as they passed the house of a
certain Primo, the latter was slapped by Navasca and
threatened with a 45 cal. pistol should he not consent to
go with the group to rob. Out of fear, he did not refuse
and as they reached the house of their intended victim,
he was given a hunting knife by Navasca and told to
stand guard outside the house. From where he stood, he
heard gunshots coming from the house, after which his
companions went out of the same and they altogether
fled.
The paramount consideration, however, which, to our
mind, weighs heavily in favor of the voluntariness and
truth of Soberano's admission and testimony in court is
the significant fact that he took the witness stand as
witness for the prosecution notwithstanding the severe
admonition by the trial judge of the consequences of his
testimony.
advised and informed the accused of his rights as an
accused and could not be indicted for dereliction of his
duties as judge
G.R. No. 140937      February 28, 2001
EXUPERANCIO CANTA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Circumstance Analogous to voluntary surrender
FACTS: Petitioner Exuperancio Canta was charged with
violating P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974).
The cow [I think it’s just a calf] taken on March 14, 1986
was owned by Narciso Gabriel (as evidenced by a
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle dated March 9,
1986, issued by the municipal treasurer), and under the
care and custody of Gardenio Agapay.
The matter was referred to the Barangay, and
subsequently to the police. While investigation is
pending, the petitioner’s father, Florentino Canta (the
barangay captain then) ordered petitioner to surrender
the cow to the Municiapl Hall of Padre Burgos.
Exuperancio Canta did as he was told.
Canta claimed that it was an honest mistake. He thought
that the said cow was his because he lost his own cattle
on December 3, 1985. Petitioner says that he even
brought a mother cow to see if the cow in question would
suckle to the mother cow, which the subject cow did. He
presented a Certificate of Ownership (executed by
Franklin Telen, a janitor at the treasurer’s office) dated
February 27, 1985. Telen, however, testified that the
said certificate was issued only on March 24, 1986 but,
at the instance of petitioner (who is Telen’s good friend),
Telen atedated it to February 27, 1985. Also, the
municipal treasurer Feliciano Salva testified that their
records do not have any registered certificate in favor of
Canta.
BACKDROP IN COURTS:
RTC, Maasin, Southern Leyte – found the accused
guilty of the offense charged.
CA – affirmed the RTC Decision. MR was denied. Hence
this instant petition.
ISSUE/s: 1. WON PETITIONER IS GUILTY OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED;
2. WON AN ORDINARY MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE EXISTS IN THIS CASE TO BENEFIT
THE PETITIONER.
HELD: 1. YES. Petitioner violated the Anti-Cattle
Rustling Law. P.D. No. 533, 2(c) defines cattle-rustling
as “. . . the taking away by any means, methods or
scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of
any of the abovementioned animals whether or not
for profit or gain, or whether committed with or
without violence against or intimidation of any
person or force upon things.”
The crime is committed if the following elements
concur: (1) a large cattle is taken; (2) it belongs to
another; (3) the taking is done without the consent
of the owner; (4) the taking is done by any means,
methods or scheme; (5) the taking is with or without
intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished
with or without violence or intimidation against
person or force upon things.
These requisites are present in this case. First, there is
no question that the cow belongs to Narciso Gabriel.
Petitioners only defense is that in taking the animal he
acted in good faith and in the honest belief that it was
the cow which he had lost. Second, petitioner, without
the consent of the owner, took the cow from the custody
of the caretaker, Gardenio Agapay, despite the fact that
he knew all along that the latter was holding the animal
for the owner, Narciso. Third, petitioner falsified his
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle by asking Telen
to antedate it prior to the taking to make it appear that he
owned the cow in question. Fourth, petitioner adopted
means, methods, or schemes to deprive Narciso of his
possession of his cow, thus manifesting his intent to
gain. Fifth, no violence or intimidation against persons or
force upon things attended the commission of the crime.
2. YES. The petitioner should be given the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender [so, that’s Art. 13 (10) in relation to par. 7].
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 latters agent; and (3)
the surrender is voluntary. 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.
In petitioners 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. (All boldfacing and
underscoring Dill).
DILL’s NOTES: CA’s ruling was further modified
because of the penalty imposed. Using the ISLaw, CA
considered the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law a special penal
statute. The SC, however, held the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law is not a special offense but an amendment to the
Revised Penal Code.
Final Ruling: the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED, with the modification that petitioner
Exuperancio Canta is hereby SENTENCED to suffer
a prison term of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional maximum, as minimum, to ten
(10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor
maximum, as maximum.
G.R. No. L-35156 November 20, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FLORO RODIL defendant-appellant.
SYLLABUS
CONTEMPT OF OR INSULT TO, PUBLIC
AUTHORITY; APPRECIATED WHERE THE
OFFENDER ATTACKED HIS VICTIM IN THE
PRESENCE OF A CHIEF OF POLICE; CASE AT
BAR. — The aggravating circumstance of contempt
of, or insult to public authority under paragraph 2 of
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be
appreciated in the case at bar. The evidence of the
prosecution clearly established that Chief of Police
Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was
taking his lunch in the same restaurant when the
incident occurred. As a matter of fact, the said chief
of police was the one who embraced or grabbed the
accused from behind, wrested the dagger from him
and thereafter brought him to the municipal building
of Indang. And appellant admittedly knew him even
then a the town chief of police, although he now
claims that he went to the municipal building to
surrender to the chief of police who was not
allegedly in the restaurant during the incident.
.; REVISED PENAL CODE; PUBLIC AUTHORITY
CONSTRUED; INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED
TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY. — While it may be
true in the cases of U.S. vs. Rodriguez, et al. (19
Phil. 150, 157-158), People vs. Siojo (61 Phil. 307,
317); and People vs. Verzo (21 SCRA 1403), this
Court ruled that the term public authority refers to a
person in authority and that a PC lieutenant or town
chief of police is not a public authority but merely an
agent of a person in authority; there is need of re-
examining such a ruling since it is not justified by the
employment of the term public authority which is
specifically used in Articles 148 and 152 of the
Revised Penal Code. There is no extended
reasoning of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid
three (3) cases why the phrase public authority
should comprehend only person in authority. The
lawmaker could have easily utilized the term "person
in authority" in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article
14 in much the same way that it employed the said
phrase in Articles 148 and 152. The lawmaker must
have intended a different meaning for the term public
 authority, which may however include, but not limited
to persons in authority.
SYNOPSIS
PC Lt. Masana and Floro Rodil, herein accused who
is a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and an
officer of the Anti-Communist League of the
Philippines had an altercation in a restaurant
because of the former's confiscation's of the latter's
gun. Angered by Lt. Masana's refusal to return his
gun, Rodil suddenly drew his dagger and attacked
Lt. Masana who tried to parry the stabs. Lt. Masana
was hit on the chest and the stomach causing his
death. The Chief of Police who was then present
during the stabbing grabbed Rodil and arrested him.
When charged and tried for murder, the accused
admitted the killing but justified the same with self-
defense. The lower court found the accused guilty
and sentenced him to death.
On automatic review, the Supreme Court
held that: (a) the accused's claim of self-defense is
not justified since it appears that he initiated the
aggression which resulted in the death of the victim;
(b) the prosecution's claim that the killing was
qualified by treachery is incorrect because the attack
was made by the accused on the spur of the
moment and the victim had tried to defend himself
by warding off the stabs; (c) the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of rank should be applied
because the accused is inferior both in rank and
social status to the victim; (d) the aggravating
circumstance of contempt of or insult to public
authority should likewise be appreciated since the
accused attacked his victim in the presence of a
chief of police; and (e) consequently, there being no
qualifying circumstance and present two aggravating
circumstances without any mitigating circumstance,
the crime committed is only homicide for which the
accused should serve an indeterminate prison term
of from 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20
years of reclusion temporal as maximum, in addition
to civil indemnities, damages and costs awarded by
the lower court.
G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, accused-appellant.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; PERSON IN
AUTHORITY; TEACHER OR PROFESSOR IS NOT TO
BE REGARDED AS A "PUBLIC AUTHORITY" WITHIN
THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE. — Careful reading of the last paragraph
of Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor
of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be
a "person in authority," such teacher or professor is so
deemed only for purposes of application of Articles 148
(direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151
(resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person) of the Revised Penal Code.
In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152
does not identify specific articles of the Revised Penal
Code for the application of which any person "directly
vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in
authority." Because a penal statute is not to be given a
longer reach and broader scope than is called for by the
ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such
statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do not
believe that a teacher or professor of a public or
recognized private school may be regarded as a "public
authority" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14
of the Revised Penal Code, the provision the trial court
applied in the case at bar.||| 
FACTS
Appellant Renato Tac-an, then eighteen (18) years and
seven (7) months of age, and the deceased Francis
Ernest Escaño III, fifteen (15) years old, were
classmates in the third year of high school of the Divine
Word College in Tagbilaran City. They were close
friends, being not only classmates but also members of
the same gang, the Bronx gang. Renato had been to the
house where Francis and his parents lived, on one or
two occasions. On those occasions, Francis' mother
noticed that Renato had a handgun with him. Francis
was then advised by his mother to distance himself from
Renato. 4
Francis withdrew from the Bronx gang. The relationship
between Renato and Francis turned sour. Sometime in
September 1984, Renato and Francis quarrelled with
each other, on which occasion Francis bodily lifted
Arnold Romelde from the ground. Arnold was friend and
companion to Renato. The quarrel resulted in Renato
and Francis being brought to the high school principal's
office. The strained relationship between the two (2)
erstwhile friends was aggravated in late November 1984
when Francis learned that Renato, together with other
members of the Bronx gang, was looking for him,
apparently with the intention of beating him up. Further
deterioration of their relationship occurred sometime in
the first week of December 1984, when graffiti appeared
on the wall of the third year high school classroom and
on the armrest of a chair in that classroom, deprecating
the Bronx gang and describing Renato as "bayot"
(homosexual). 5 Renato attributed the graffiti to Francis.
At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 14 December
1984, Renato entered Room 15 of the high school
building to attend his English III class. Renato placed his
scrapbook prepared for their Mathematics class on his
chair, and approached the teacher, Mrs. Liliosa Baluma,
to raise a question. Upon returning to his chair, he found
Francis sitting there, on the scrapbook. Renato was
angered by what he saw and promptly kicked the chair
on which Francis was seated. Francis, however,
explained that he had not intentionally sat down on
Renato's scrapbook. A fistfight would have ensued but volunteered to persuade his brother to give up. Renato's
some classmates and two (2) teachers, Mrs. Baluma father who, by this time had also arrived, pleaded with
and Mr. Damaso Pasilbas, intervened and prevented Renato to surrender himself. Renato then turned over
them from assaulting each other. After the two (2) had his gun to his brother through an opening in the
quieted down and apparently shaken hands at the balustrade of the faculty room. Capt. Lazo took the gun
instance of Mrs. Baluma, the latter resumed her English from Renato's brother, went to the door of the faculty
III class. Francis sat on the last row to the extreme right room, entered and placed Renato under arrest. 9
of the teacher while Renato was seated on the same last
row at the extreme left of the teacher. While the English
III class was still going on, Renato slipped out of the
classroom and went home to get a gun. He was back at
the classroom approximately fifteen (15) minutes later. 6
The Mathematics class under Mr. Damaso Pasilbas
scheduled for 3:00 p.m. had just started in Room 15
when Renato suddenly burst into the room, shut the door
and with both hands raised, holding a revolver, shouted
"Where is Francis?" Upon sighting Francis seated
behind and to the right of student Ruel Ungab, Renato
fired at Francis, hitting a notebook, a geometry book and
the armrest of Ruel's chair. Francis and Ruel jumped up
and with several of their classmates rushed forward
towards the teacher's platform to seek protection from
their teacher. Renato fired a second time, this time
hitting the blackboard in front of the class. Francis and
the other students rushed back towards the rear of the
room. Renato walked towards the center of the
classroom and fired a third time at Francis, hitting the
concrete wall of the classroom. Francis and a number of
his classmates rushed towards the door, the only door to
and from Room 15. Renato proceeded to the teacher's
platform nearest the door and for the fourth time fired at
Francis as the latter was rushing towards the door. This
time, Francis was hit on the head and he fell on the back
of Ruel and both fell to the floor. Ruel was pulled out of
the room by a friend; Francis remained sprawled on the
floor bleeding profusely. 7
Renato then went out of Room 15, and paced between
Rooms 14 and 15. A teacher, Mr. Pablo Baluma,
apparently unaware that it was Renato who had gunned
down Francis, approached Renato and asked him to
help Francis as the latter was still alive inside the room.
Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, closed the door
behind him, saying: "So, he is still alive. Where is his
chest?" Standing over Francis sprawled face down on
the classroom floor, Renato aimed at the chest of
Francis and fired once more. The bullet entered Francis'
back below the right shoulder, and exited on his front
chest just above the right nipple. 8
Renato then left with two (2) remaining students and
locked Francis alone inside Room 15. Renato proceeded
to the ground floor and entered the faculty room. There,
he found some teachers and students and ordered them
to lock the door and close the windows, in effect holding
them as hostages. He also reloaded his gun with five (5)
bullets. After some time, a team of Philippine
Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Larino Lazo arrived
and surrounded the faculty room. With a hand-held
public address device, Capt. Lazo called upon Renato to
surrender himself. Renato did not respond to this call.
Renato's brother approached Capt. Lazo and