Involuntary surrender
August 17, 2004 | 12:00am
Voluntary surrender of an accused is a mitigating circumstance that lessens the penalty to be imposed on him if he is found guilty. To be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance however certain requisites must be proven. This is explained in the case of Lucas.
Lucas case stemmed from the killing of Enteng. It happened in the evening of November 11, 1997. Enteng was then walking along the street in their town together with Manny and Danny when they met Lucas. As Lucas approached the group, he collared Enteng saying, "Get it! If you will not get it tonight, I will kill you". Then Lucas frontally lunged at Enteng with a "Batangas" knife. Enteng tried to defend himself with his left hand but he still sustained a 2 cm long stab wound in the chest injuring the right auricle aside from the incised wound on the left palm. Manny easily recognized Lucas as the assailant because the latter was his barangay mate and there was a street light about three or four arms length away. Enteng was rushed to the hospital while Lucas fled from the crime scene.
Enteng died of cardiogenic shock due to the stab wounds. Manny and Danny executed sworn statements identifying Lucas as the killer. The following day when Lucas learned from a friend that he was the suspect in the killing of Enteng, he went into hiding for fear of being incarcerated. But his mother convinced him to surrender to the police. So after two weeks in hiding, Lucas surrendered and disclaimed any responsibility for the killing of Enteng.
Enteng was charged with murder. During the trial, he interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in another town on the night of the incident about thirty minutes ride away. He presented the affidavits of desistance of Danny and Manny stating that the person who stabbed Enteng was not Lucas. Manny however, on cross examination, denied having signed said affidavit claiming it was a forgery. While Danny, who was presented as a hostile witness for the defense, claimed that he was only pressured by Lucas wife into signing it out of pity for the latter who was pregnant.
The trial court, sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA), (and eventually by the Supreme Court) did not give probative value to the affidavits of desistance of Manny and Danny since the same were impeached by the testimonial evidence of the same persons who executed them. The Courts said that as between the assailed affidavits of desistance and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses-affiants before the court, the latter should prevail. So Lucas was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide only because there was no treachery in the killing since the attack was frontal. But in imposing the penalty, the CA appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Lucas and reduced his maximum jail sentence from 17 years and 4 months to 13 years 9 months and 10 days. Was the CA correct?
No. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must be proven: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. Going to the police station to clear ones name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
In this case Lucas surrendered to the authorities in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This hardly shows any repentance or acknowledgment of the crime on his part. Moreover, at the time Lucas surrendered, there was already a pending warrant of arrest against him. So applying the Indeterminate sentence law, his maximum jail term should be 14 years and 8 months and his minimum sentence is 8 years and 1 day (Luces vs. People G.R. 149492, January 20, 2003. 395 SCRA 524).
E-mail: [email protected].
Lucas case stemmed from the killing of Enteng. It happened in the evening of November 11, 1997. Enteng was then walking along the street in their town together with Manny and Danny when they met Lucas. As Lucas approached the group, he collared Enteng saying, "Get it! If you will not get it tonight, I will kill you". Then Lucas frontally lunged at Enteng with a "Batangas" knife. Enteng tried to defend himself with his left hand but he still sustained a 2 cm long stab wound in the chest injuring the right auricle aside from the incised wound on the left palm. Manny easily recognized Lucas as the assailant because the latter was his barangay mate and there was a street light about three or four arms length away. Enteng was rushed to the hospital while Lucas fled from the crime scene.
Enteng died of cardiogenic shock due to the stab wounds. Manny and Danny executed sworn statements identifying Lucas as the killer. The following day when Lucas learned from a friend that he was the suspect in the killing of Enteng, he went into hiding for fear of being incarcerated. But his mother convinced him to surrender to the police. So after two weeks in hiding, Lucas surrendered and disclaimed any responsibility for the killing of Enteng.
Enteng was charged with murder. During the trial, he interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was in another town on the night of the incident about thirty minutes ride away. He presented the affidavits of desistance of Danny and Manny stating that the person who stabbed Enteng was not Lucas. Manny however, on cross examination, denied having signed said affidavit claiming it was a forgery. While Danny, who was presented as a hostile witness for the defense, claimed that he was only pressured by Lucas wife into signing it out of pity for the latter who was pregnant.
The trial court, sustained by the Court of Appeals (CA), (and eventually by the Supreme Court) did not give probative value to the affidavits of desistance of Manny and Danny since the same were impeached by the testimonial evidence of the same persons who executed them. The Courts said that as between the assailed affidavits of desistance and the sworn testimonies of the witnesses-affiants before the court, the latter should prevail. So Lucas was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide only because there was no treachery in the killing since the attack was frontal. But in imposing the penalty, the CA appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of Lucas and reduced his maximum jail sentence from 17 years and 4 months to 13 years 9 months and 10 days. Was the CA correct?
No. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must be proven: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. Going to the police station to clear ones name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
In this case Lucas surrendered to the authorities in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This hardly shows any repentance or acknowledgment of the crime on his part. Moreover, at the time Lucas surrendered, there was already a pending warrant of arrest against him. So applying the Indeterminate sentence law, his maximum jail term should be 14 years and 8 months and his minimum sentence is 8 years and 1 day (Luces vs. People G.R. 149492, January 20, 2003. 395 SCRA 524).
E-mail: [email protected].
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest