This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's attempt to mitigate his culpability by claiming that he voluntarily surrendered to the police immediately after being informed of the charges against him is futile. Jurisprudence requires that a surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities[26] either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture.[27] The following requisites should likewise be present: (1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; (3) the surrender was voluntary; and (4) there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed.[28] In this case, the accused-appellant surrendered only after having been informed of the charge of rape against him or about two months from the commission of the alleged crime.[29] He even denied the said charge upon his purported surrender. The alleged surrender, therefore, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance.[30] | |||||
|
2009-04-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner is correct in saying that in People v. Cagas[27] and in People v. Taraya,[28] the Court added a fourth requisite before "voluntary surrender" may be appreciated in favor of the accused - that there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed. Since the warrant of arrest had been issued, petitioner insists that arrest was imminent and the "surrender" could not be considered "voluntary." | |||||