People vs.

Pinca, 318 SCRA 270, November 17, 1999

FACTS:

On January 16, 1995 Joel Pinca (accused) after having some drinks with Gerry Abenir
(witness) at a bakery, then rode a Passenger motorcycle (habal habal) together with Abenir to
alight at Del carmen, bohol and Dorol, bohol. Nearing their first stop which is the home of
the witness, accused spotted Conrado Angcahan (victim) walking in an unsteady manner.
Both of them got down from the motorcycle then and their, during which accused told the
witness that the person walking in the unsteady manner was the guy who splashed some
liquor on him earlier, and that he would wait for him to get near. The accused got a piece of
wood, then once the victim was near enough proceeded to hit him in the head rendering the
victim unconscious. The head trauma caused by the piece of wood eventually resulted in the
death of the victim

The morning after the incident police came to Pincas house, where in he denied any
knowledge of the murder incident. He then distanced himself from the place of the incident
by going to Tagbiliran City, and when he found out that the police came to his wife’s work
place to find him, he came back to Balilihan to clear his name in the police station. But
being the prime suspect, he was instead incarcerated.

During the cross examination of testimonies given (Pinca and Abenir), and the findings in the
autopsy report it was found that the testimony of Pinca not only had discrepancies with the
autopsy report but with his own testimony as well. Because it kept changing during the
course of the examination. On January 8, 1997 accused was found guilty by the trial court of
murder as qualified by treachery. . He is hereby sentenced to be punished with reclusion
perpetua to death. The case was elevated to the SC for automatic review, in view of the death
sentence.

Joel Pinca through his counsel replied with a 27 page brief, finding the ruling of the trial
court to erroneous, one of which is how the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary
surrender as a mitigating circumstance.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as
a mitigating circumstance.

RULING:

The court found that voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance cannot be

appreciated in this case because of the Pinca’s actions after the incident are not marks of
voluntary surrender as he even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident
when he went to stay in Tagbiliran City. When he went to the police station at Balilihan,
Bohol to clear his name that was not a sign of voluntary surrender.

Moreober, when there is no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the

commission of the offense, the lesser penalty—reclusion perpetua—should be imposed upon
the appellant.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION
that Appellant Joel Pinca shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, not death, and shall
pay the heirs of Conrado Angcahan.