PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

MARIO VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO

SORIANO (At large), PABLO RAMOS (At large), and JERRY SORIANO (State
Witness), accused, MARIO VERCELES and FELIX CORPUZ, accused-appellants.

G.R. No. 130650

September 10, 2002

FACTS:

On or about the 19th day of October, 1996, in the morning, in barangay Malibong,

Municipality of Urbiztondo, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, the accused MARIO
VERCELES, FELIX CORPUZ, MAMERTO SORIANO (At large), PABLO RAMOS (At
large), and JERRY SORIANO (State Witness), conspiring, confederating and helping
one another, with intent of gain and by means of force upon things, entered the house
of one Mrs. Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window which they
used as an ingress and once inside, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take and cart away the following personal properties: one (1) colored T.V.,
one (1) VHS, assorted jewelries, one (1) alarm clock and one (1) radio cassette, all
valued at SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) owned by the said Rosita Quilates,
and that on the same occasion, the accused Mamerto Soriano, Verceles and Felix
Corpuz., conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with Maribeth Bolito against her will
to the damage and prejudice of the aforenamed victims.

Accused Felix Corpuz and Mario Verceles interposed the instant appeal. They alleged
that the trial court erred in discharging Jerry Soriano as a state witness, in appreciating
conspiracy among the accused, in not considering as mitigating circumstance the
voluntary surrender of Mario Verceles, and in awarding damages to the private
complainants.

In trying to mitigate his criminal liability, accused-appellant Mario Verceles argued that
the trial court erred in not considering the circumstance of voluntary surrender in his
favor. Upon learning that police authorities were searching for him in connection with
the alleged crime, he immediately proceeded to the barangay captain of his place and
voluntarily surrendered himself.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant Mario Verceles by reason of Voluntary Surrender

or plea of guilt is meritorious?

RULING:
The court held that for the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be
appreciated, the accused must satisfactorily comply with three requisites: (1) he has not
been actually arrested; (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's
agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. There must be a showing of spontaneity and
an intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare them the trouble and expense concomitant
to his capture. Voluntary surrender is not a mitigating circumstance where it appears
that the purpose of the accused in going to the authorities is for an entirely different
matter as to inquire merely about a warrant of arrest in connection with a pending case
against the accused for rape.

Evidence shows that Mario Verceles’ surrender to the authorities was not spontaneous
and unconditional. He submitted himself to the police only to clear the matter and to
know the reason why the police were looking for him and when asked what his
involvement was to the alleged robbery and rape, he answered that he does not know
anything about the crime. In People v. Abella, the court held that when the accused
goes to a police station merely to clear his name and not to give himself up, voluntary
surrender may not be appreciated. On the basis of the foregoing, accused-appellant
Mario Verceles is not entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.

The court ordered that the assailed decision finding accused-appellants Mario Verceles
and Felix Corpuz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape
punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
the award of moral damages is reduced from P200,000.00 to P50,000.00; the award of
exemplary damages is DELETED for lack of basis and the sum of P50,000.00 is
awarded for civil indemnity.