1. People vs. Ural, GR No.

L-30801, March 27, 1974 (case # 85)

TOPIC: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

FACTS:

- The accused was a police officer who was at the time of the crime was the relieved guard
the jail
- The deceased was a detention prisoner
- The court consider the credibility of the witnesses’ statement against the Accused:
They saw the accused inside the jail boxing the victim prisoner who was then drunk.
After a short interval, the accused returned with a bottle, poured its contents on the shirt of
the victim then he ignited it with a match and left at the cell.
- According to another’s testimony, the act of the accused of removing the deceased’ burning
shirt was at most an indication that he was “belatedly alarmed by the consequences of his
evil act”.

ISSUE:

WON the accused’s act shall be appreciated as Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong to
mitigate him from criminal liability.

HELD:

NO. The trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance “that the offender had
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.” It is manifest from the proven facts
that the accused had no intent to kill the victim. His design was only to maltreat him may be because
in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of himself inside the detention cell. When the
accused realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the victim to secure
medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
 9. People vs. Diokno and Diokno, G.R. No. L-45100; 63 Phil. 601, October 26, 1936(case #93)

TOPIC: Immediate vindication of a grave offense

FACTS:

- The two accused was father and son who was against with the relationship and secret
marriage of the daughter with a Chinese businessman (victim).
- The deceased ran upstairs when he saw the father and brother of his sweetheart.
- The two accused stabbed the victim when they caught him from a house where he and the
daughter of the accused were staying.
- He begged for his life but the accused continued to inflict serious wounds unto the former.
- Until a neighbor fired a gunshot to call for attention of a police. Thereafter, the accused
were brought to the police headquarters after admitting the evil act.

ISSUE:

WON the act of the two accused can be considered as amitigating circumstance?

HELD:

The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
that is, immediate vindication of a grave offense to said accused, may be taken into consideration in
favor of the two accused. There was no interruption from the time the offense was committed to
the vindication thereof. The herein accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the
elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes
disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home and at the same time spreads uneasiness and
anxiety in the minds of the members thereof.

The fact that the accused saw the deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their
presence, as if he refused to deal with them after having gravely offended them, was certainly a
stimulus strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion which blinded them and led them to
commit the crime with which they are charged.
 18b. People vs. Pinca, GR No. 129256; 318 SCRA 270, November 17, 1999 (case #102)

TOPIC: Voluntary Surrender

FACTS:

- On 16 January 1995, Gerry Abenir after disembarking from a passenger bus which he rode
from Tagbilaran City to Balilihan, Bohol, together with a friend entered Madonna’s Bake
Shop.

- Gerry saw Joel Pinca made a remark that somebody splashed liquor. If it were not for the
presence of the shop owner, he would have inflicted injuries to the person responsible.
Gerry and the accused rode on a passenger motorcycle driven by one Wilfredo Lumantas on
their way home to Del Carmen Weste and Dorol, Balilihan, Bohol.

Issue: Whether or not the accused act is voluntary surrender.

HELD:

If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose
arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not voluntary.—For voluntary
surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1)
the offender has not been actually arrested, (2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority,
and (3) the surrender was voluntary. If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the
safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not
voluntary.

The act of a suspect of going to the police station only “to clear his name” does not show
any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.—Appellant’s actions after the incident are
not marks of voluntary surrender. Denying to the police any personal knowledge of the crime, he
even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident by going to Tagbilaran City. It was only
when he learned that he had become a suspect and that the police were looking for him even in
Tagbilaran that he finally went to the police station, but only “to clear his name.” Such acts do not
show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
26b. Cimafranca vs. Sandiganbayan, GR. No. 94408, February 14, 1991 (case #110)

TOPIC: returning of malversed funds analogous to voluntary surrender

FACTS:

- The accused was a Provincial Fisheries Inspector for 6 years. Reappointed as Fishery Aide for
1 year. During his term, he was issued a revolver and an engine.
- When his appointment expired, he was advised by the Governor to return the property
accountabilities. OIC of the Office of the Treasurer also wrote him a follow up letter to
return the revolver and the engine. The accused did not comply.
- The Provincial Auditor conducted a property audit ,for therein listed government officials
and one of them was the accused .
- They found out that accused, although separated from the service, had not yet settled his
accountabilities despite demands made upon him. Because of failure, he was charged of
Malversation of Public Property.
- According to the defense, the engine was stolen and the revolver fell into the sea while
patrolling. Only after 2 years of diligent search of the properties he only had the chance to
return them. Provided that he returned them during his trial.

ISSUE:

WON the accused shall be given credence for a mitigating circumstance.

HELD:

This Court has made the consistent pronouncement that the return of the funds malversed
is not a defense and will not be an exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the
criminal liability of the accused. At best it can be a mitigating circumstance.

In this case, it took the petitioner several years before he returned the government property,
such circumstance cannot be considered a special mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary
surrender, as the trial court did credit to the petitioner. Said government property appear to be
under the control and possession of petitioner all the time. There was no reason why he could not
return the same promptly, if not soonest to the government. The much delayed return of the
property must be a desperate act and afterthought of petitioner when he realized that all possible
hope of exoneration was lost during the trial.