People vs Ablao (voluntary surrender)
Facts: On December 16, 1977, Mario Ablao
shot to death the deceased Andres
Manambit Sr., the president of the
Association of Barangay Captains after a
session with the member of the
Sangguniang Bayan. When, he came out
of the canteen, he saw a Lt. Gapas and
shot him but missed. The accused went
into hiding for two and a half years and
only emerged when he was one of the
suspects of killing a judge and his son.
The defense argues that the accused
was merely obeying the orders of his
brother.
Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender is appreciated in
this case
Ruling: No. In order that voluntary surrender is
appreciated, it must be spontaneous
that it shows the intent of the accused
to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or because he
wishes to save them the trouble and
expense necessarily incurred in his
search and capture. In the case at bar,
there is no spontaneous surrender as
the accused went into hiding for 2 and a
half years. The accused is convicted of
the crime homicide with the
aggravating circumstance of disregard
of rank.
People vs Serafica (plea of guilt)
Facts: On March 2, 1968, accused being then a
prisoner convicted by final judgment
and while serving his sentence, stabbed
colonist Rolando Galeno in the different
parts of the body who died instantly.
The accused was a recidivist and was
convicted for murder and frustrated
murder. The accused pleaded guilty not
only at the case at bar but also in the
other two cases. He admitted the act of
stabbing but denies the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of treachery
because according to him they had a
fight with the victim and all of the
sudden everything becomes black to
him. He could no longer think well. The
counsel de officio requested that the
accused should be examined by a
specialist to determine his state of
mind.
Issue: WON the plea of guilty by the accused
should be an unconditional admission
of guilt with respect thereof
Ruling: No. The plea of guilty by the accused is
not of the nature as to foreclose his
right to defend himself from said
charge. There are circumstances
pointing to the possibility that accused
was not in full possession of his mental
faculties when he attacked the
deceased. Instead of pronouncing
judgment after the entry of his plea, the
accused should be subjected to the
necessary mental examination to
determine his decree of sanity at the
time he committed the acts charged.