Voluntary Surrender and Guilty Plea: How can it be Invoked and Established

We shall discuss voluntary surrender and guilty plea. Article 13 Paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code speaks about two of the circumstances where criminal liability is mitigated. There are two mitigating circumstances in this paragraph, namely:

• Surrendering oneself voluntarily to a person in authority or the agents of that person
• Confession of guilt made in open court that was given voluntarily prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution

Such circumstances mitigate the criminal liability of the offender owing to the spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit to the authorities, perhaps because he admits his guilt or because he wants to spare the authorities the hassle and expense that may be incurred for his search and capture. The basis of Article 13 par 7 is the lesser perversity of the offender.

What does the Law say?

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The following are mitigating circumstances:

                                    xxx      xxx      xxx

7] That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.¹

                                    xx        xxx      xxx

Voluntary Surrender and Guilty Plea | Elements

            The requisites of voluntary surrender are:

• That the offender had not been actually arrested;²
• That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent;³
• That the surrender was voluntary.³

Meanwhile, the requisites of plea of guilty are:

• That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;²
• That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case;³
• That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.³

Difference between Voluntary Surrender and Confession of Guilt as Mitigating circumstances

It is important to emphasize that the accused surrenders voluntarily because he recognizes his guilt or because he does not want to cause any trouble or additional expenses for his search and capture. To be appreciated, the accused must not be arrested; otherwise, there was no voluntary action on his part.

The surrender must be voluntary as well. For such surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous, acting without external stimulus. As a result, a surrender is not voluntary when the accused surrenders because he has been cornered by those in authority and has nowhere else to go.

In the case of a guilty plea, it must be made during arraignment, when the Criminal Information is read to the accused. Otherwise, such a plea is not considered a mitigating circumstance if made during trial or after the presentation of evidence.

Because the plea must also be made in open court, extra-judicial confessions are not recognized as mitigating circumstances. It is also worth noting that a conditional plea of guilty, in which the accused will only plead guilty if a specific penalty is imposed on him, is not considered a mitigating circumstance under this Code.

What does the Court say?

The Supreme Court, in a number of cases decided when the aforementioned mitigating circumstances is applicable.

Voluntary Surrender

In the case of People vs. Radomes,⁴ herein accused was charged with murder. Upon his arrest, the latter did not resist nor hide when a policeman ordered him to come down. The Supreme Court considered it as mitigating circumstance. The Court said that:

“The police officer’s testimony shows that the appellant did not offer any resistance nor try to hide when the policeman ordered him to come down his house. He even brought his bolo used to commit the crime and voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities before he could be arrested. These circumstances are sufficient to consider the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in his favor.”⁵

However, in the case of People vs. Salvilla,⁶  the Court did not consider as mitigating circumstance when the accused only surrender when they were surrounded by police officers and there was no chance to escape. The Court argued that:

The “surrender” by the Appellant and his co-accused hardly meets these requirements. They were, indeed, asked to surrender by the police and military authorities but they refused until only much later when they could no longer do otherwise by force of circumstances when they knew they were completely surrounded and there was no chance of escape.⁷

The surrender of the accused was held not to be mitigating as when he gave up only after he was surrounded by the constabulary and police forces (People vs. Sigayan et al., G.R. Nos. L-18523-26, 30 April 1966, 16 SCRA 839; People vs. Mationg G.R. No. L-33488, 29 March 1982, 113 SCRA 167).⁷

Their surrender was not spontaneous as it was motivated more by an intent to insure their safety. And while it is claimed that they intended to surrender, the fact is that they did not despite several opportunities to do so. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of (People vs. Dimdiman 106 Phil. 391 [1959]).⁷

Plea of Guilty

In the case of People vs. Dela Cruz,⁸ the Supreme Court did not appreciate the plea of guilty of the accused, as a mitigating circumstance, as it was made after the presentation of evidence. According to the Honorable Court:

“…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.⁹

“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.⁹

“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.”⁹

Summary

Article 13 Paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code lists two mitigating circumstances: (1) voluntary surrender and (2) guilty plea.

The accused must voluntarily surrender without any outside influence, such as the knowledge that his chances of eluding the law are minimal or the information that the police are surrounding him, in order for the circumstance to be taken into account. His surrender must not by virtue of a warrant of arrest, since the government has already incurred expenses for his manhunt.

A guilty plea must be entered prior to the presentation of evidence, specifically during arraignment, at the very least when the Criminal Information is read to the accused. It must also be done in public. Such a plea must not be conditional, or it will not be considered a mitigating circumstance, because the intent is not to admit his felonious act, but rather to achieve a favorable result, such as a lower penalty.

Conclusion

Article 13 Par 7 was based on lesser perversity of the offender. The sine qua non of voluntary surrender is the voluntariness of the accused to surrender himself to the person in authority. Herein, the accused shall surrender himself either because he wants to acknowledge his guilt or he does not want further trouble and expenses on the part of the State for his search and capture.

Meanwhile, a guilty plea is the accused’s acknowledgment of the crime he has committed. It must, however, be made during arraignment and prior to the presentation of evidence. Plea of guilty is mitigating because it is an act of repentance and respect for the law; it indicates a moral disposition in the accused that is favorable to his reform.

In the case of People vs. Fontalba,¹⁰ the Supreme Court said that although these circumstances are considered mitigating in the same subsection of Article 13, when both are present, the should have the effect of mitigating as two independent circumstances. If any of them must mitigate the penalty to a certain extent, when both are present, they should produce this effect to a greater extent.¹¹

1. Article 13, paragraph 7, Revised Penal Code[↩]
2. Reyes,. Revised Penal Code Book One, [2021][↩][↩]
3. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
4. G.R. No. L-68421, March 20, 1986[↩]
5. Ibid.[↩]
6. G.R. No. 88163, April 26, 1990[↩]
7. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩]
8. G.R. No. L-54284, December 29, 1936[↩]
9. Ibid.[↩][↩][↩]
10. G.R. No. L-43126, July 5, 1935[↩]
11. Ibid.[↩]