People v.

Dulos
G.R. No. 107328; September 26, 1994
Digested by: Czarina Louise H. Navarro

Facts: Dulos, the accused-apellant, engaged the services of Susan, a professional

entertainer to entertain Dulos’ guests for Php 100.00. Thereafter, Susan decided to
check in with one of the latter's guests at the upper floor of the disco house for an
additional fee of P500.00. When she received the money, she changed her mind,
thus, spawning a fight with her customer.

In the meantime, Susan came down to the lobby of the Imperial Hotel to meet her
boyfriend, Apolinario "Paul" Tamse who was waiting for her. Upon hearing about the
reneged deal, the irate accused-appellant Dulos confronted Susan and Paul. Paul
apologized to the accused-appellant saying that his girlfriend does not accept
intimate dates.

Dulos, angered by the an incident, then drew his .45 caliber pistol and demanded the
return of his money. Susan handed the P100.00 to accused-appellant, at the same
time shielding Paul with her body. She denied having received P500.00 from
accused-appellant's guest lest her boyfriend would find out that she agreed to check
in with a customer. Susan pleaded with the latter's gun still pointed towards them,
she tried to grapple with him for possession of the same but she was violently
pushed. She fell to the ground. At this juncture, Paul pleaded for mercy by kneeling
down and raising both his hands up. His plea fell on deaf ears as accused-appellant
fired his gun hitting Paul on the left breast. Paul fell face down to the ground.
Accused-appellant then fired another shot at Paul's back, killing him on the spot.

Issue: Whether a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender could be

appreciated in this case.

Ruling: The generic mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be

appreciated favor of Dulos. In order that voluntary surrender may be appreciated, it
is necessary that "it must be spontaneous and made in such manner 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 expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture."

Here, there was no conscious effort on the part of Dulos to voluntarily surrender to
the military authorities when he went to Camp Siongco, Dinaig, Maguindanao after
the fate incident. As he himself admitted in his testimony, he was not placed under
custody by the military authorities as he was free to roam around as he pleased.
Verily, he went to the said camp to take up residence, not to voluntarily surrender to
the authorities. Likewise, his claim that he surrendered his 0.45 caliber pistol to a
certain Major Bermones, one of his guests at the Old Imperial Hotel, is not
substantiated by evidence. Assuming that the gun was surrendered, that fact cannot
be appreciated in his favor.

The Court, in the case of People v. Palo, held that where an accused merely
surrendering his person to the authorities, there is no voluntary surrender.

People v. Del Castillo

G.R. No. 169084, January 18, 2012
Digested by: Czarina Louise H. Navarro

Facts: One of the accused, Hermogenes del Castillo, went to the house of Barangay
Captain Aloria following the killing of the three (3) victims, for the fear of retaliation
from the relatives of the persons killed, because the bodies were found near his
brother’s house. He came to know that he was being implicated in the killing when
he was incarcerated. Barangay Captain Aloria told him to go the police station.

The RTC convicted the Hermogenes of murder, but appreciated voluntary surrender
as a mitigating circumstance in his favor.
Issue: Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be
appreciated.
Ruling: No. In order that voluntary surrender is appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (a) the accused has not been
actually arrested; (b) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the
latter’s agent; and (c) surrender is voluntary. The third requisite requires the
surrender to be spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused to unconditionally
submit himself to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture.
In this case, although Hermogenes went to Barangay Chairman Aloria of Bulihan
after the killings, he did so to seek protection against the retaliation of the victims’
relatives, not to admit his participation in the killing of the victims. Even then,
Hermogenes denied any involvement in the killings when the police went to take him
from Chairman Aloria’s house. As such, Hermogenes did not unconditionally submit
himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in the killings or in
order to save the authorities the trouble and expense for his arrest.

Voluntary Confession
People v. Dela Cruz
GR No. L-45284; December 29, 1936
Digested by: Czarina Louise H. Navarro
Facts: The accused Francisco de la Cruz, and others did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent of gain, attack, assault and use personal
violence upon one Yu Wan, by then and there giving him blows with his fist on the
face and other parts of the body, thereby inflicting upon him physical injuries which
have required and will require medical attendance for a period of more than one but
less than nine days and have prevented and will prevent the said Yu Wan from
engaging in his customary labor for the same period of time; and afterwards took,
stole and carried away with him without the consent of the owner thereof Twenty-six
(P26) pesos in cash belonging to Yu Wan, to the damage and prejudice of the said
owner.

The accused is a habitual delinquent under the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code, he having been previously convicted once of the crime of theft and twice of
the crime of estafa, by virtue of final judgments rendered by competent courts,
having been last convicted on July 24, 1933.

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.

Issue: Whether or not the appellant's plea of guilty constitute a mitigating

circumstance under Article 13, subsection 7, of the RPC.
Ruling: No. The appellant's plea of guilty does not constitute a mitigating
circumstance under article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, which
requires that this plea be spontaneous and that it be made prior to the presentation
of evidence by the prosecution. The confession of guilt, although subsequent to the
consummation of the crime and entirely alien to its development, constitutes a cause
for the mitigation of the penalty, not because it is a circumstance modifying criminal
responsibility already incurred and in the evolution of which it has not intervened
absolutely, but because, as an act of repentance and respect for the law, it indicates
a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his reform. It is clear that these
benefits are not deserved by the accused who submits to the law only after the
presentation of some evidence for the prosecution, believing that in the end the trial
will result in his conviction by virtue thereof.

People vs. Magallanes

G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997
Digested by: Czarina Louise H. Navarro

Facts: On September 29, 1991, at around 3PM, the appellant, Magallanes, who was
a “mananari” trekked the road to the cockpit of Pob. Sagbayan, Bohol.  The
Magallanes was in the company of several other cockfighting afficionados, among
whom were Romualdo Cempron and Danilo Salpucial.  While on their way, they
passed by Virgilio Tapales who was drinking in a store. Tapales approached
Cempron and conversed with him briefly.  For some unknown reason, Tapales then
directed his attention to Magallanes who was walking a few steps behind
Cempron.  Tapales held Magallanes by his shirt, slapped him and strangled his
neck.  But seeing a knife tucked in Tapales’ waist, Magallanes pulled out the knife
and slashed at Tapales to loosen his grip.  Magallanes succeeded in wounding the
face and neck of Tapales who let go of the appellant and fled for his life.  Insatiated,
Magallanes pursued Tapales and when the latter fell, Magallanes stabbed him
several more times before uttering the following words: “you are already dead in that
case.”
During arraignment, Magallanes expressed his willingness to enter a plea of guilty to
the lesser offense of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and
voluntary surrender.

Issue: Whether Magallanes’ plea of guilty constitutes a voluntary confession of guilt.

Ruling: Yes. In People v. Yturriaga, where the accused who was charged with
murder entered a qualified plea of guilty by claiming that the alleged qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation did not exist, the Court said that:
“Although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence became
necessary, the qualification did not deny the defendant's guilt and, what is more, was
subsequently fully justified. It was not the defendant's fault that aggravating
circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information and mitigating
circumstances omitted therefrom. If such qualification could deprive the accused of
the benefit of plea of guilty, then the prosecution could nullify this mitigating
circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating
circumstances.”
Magallanes was thus convicted of the crime of homicide only with the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty in his favor.