The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has clarified that voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance must be determined based on the accused’s true intent and the totality of circumstances.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Court granted a man’s petition and reduced his sentence after recognizing his voluntary surrender in a bigamy case.

The man went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apply for clearance. During processing, his name registered a “hit” due to a pending case, which he admitted to the NBI officer. He was told to return after a week while the records were verified.

When he returned, the officer informed him that he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding arrest warrant issued 13 years earlier. He then said, “masuko na lang ako” (I will surrender) and sought assistance in posting bail. The warrant was subsequently served on him.

The NBI later issued a certificate stating that he voluntarily surrendered. However, the warrant’s return and the order of release described him as having been “arrested.”

The Regional Trial Court convicted him of bigamy and considered his guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance but refused to recognize voluntary surrender. It relied on court records stating he was “arrested” and noted that the case had remained pending for 13 years because he could not be located. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, saying he went to the NBI to secure clearance, not to surrender, and that he had no real choice once informed of the warrant.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, voluntary surrender requires that the accused was not yet arrested, surrendered to a person in authority or their agent, and did so voluntarily.

The Court found that the man declared his intent to surrender before the warrant was served and had not yet been arrested. He surrendered to an NBI officer, who is considered a person in authority.

On the issue of intent, the SC said that if the man meant to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI after learning of a possible pending case. While his first visit was to apply for clearance, his decision to come back showed his willingness to cooperate.

The Court also noted that there was no proof he knew an arrest warrant had already been issued. It cited his continued use of his real name, absence of any attempt to flee, and his voluntary return to the NBI office.

The SC stressed that once guilt is established, voluntary surrender should be appreciated with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach.”
3*