Easy way out

This case explains the meaning of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance that reduces the penalty for a crime committed. It also shows why men are not deterred from desecrating their marital vows knowing that they can commit such a criminal act without even spending a single day in jail. Women’s rights advocate can certainly use this as an example in advancing their causes.

This is the case of Gerry who is united in lawful marriage to Rose. On o about July 31, 2003, without said marriage having been legally dissolved, Gerry willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contracted a second marriage with Julie who also knew fully well of Gerry’s existing and valid marriage to Rose.

When Rose learned about her husband’s illegal act, she sued him and Julie for the crime of bigamy. After the necessary preliminary investigation, the Information for bigamy was filed with the Regional Trial Court against both Gerry and Rose on February 24, 2005. On March 1, 2005, the RTC issued an order finding probable cause for the accused to stand trial for the crime of bigamy and for the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. In the afternoon of the same day, Gerry surrendered to the court and filed a motion for reduction of bail. Thereafter, he posted bail so the warrant for his arrest was no longer issued.

Upon arraignment, Gerry acknowledged his culpability and immediately pleaded “Guilty”. Subsequently however or on April 8, 2005, he momentarily prayed for the withdrawal of his plea in order to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Rose opposed this motion on the ground that not all the elements of voluntary surrender were present. She added that voluntary surrender was raised only as an afterthought and should not be entertained anymore since the case was already set for promulgation of sentence.

But on June 6, 2005 the RTC granted Gerry’s motion and appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender aside from the plea of guilty in the determination of the penalty to be imposed. So Gerry was sentenced to a reduced penalty of 6 months arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years, 2 months of prision correctional as maximum.

Two days later or on June 8, 2009 Gerry applied for probation which was favorably acted upon by the RTC by referring it to the Probation Officer.

On the other hand Rose questioned the ruling of the RTC in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender after her motion for reconsideration was denied. She filed a petition for certiorari and argued that the surrender of Gerry cannot be considered voluntary since the Information was already filed against him and a warrant for his arrest has been issued. Was Rose correct?

Regrettably, the Supreme Court said no. In the first place, under Section 7, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, judgments of convictions cannot be corrected unless the accused consents thereto; or he himself moves for reconsideration or appeals from the decision. The reason for this rule is to protect an accused already convicted from having to defend himself anew for more serious offenses or penalties which the prosecution or the court may have overlooked. Correcting the same and asking for a higher penalty constitutes a violation of an accused’s right against double jeopardy.

Besides, there is really a “voluntary surrender” on the part of Gerry. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated the following should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; (3) the surrender is spontaneous or that the offender gave himself up because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense to be incurred for his search and capture. If the reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of the arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not voluntary.

The circumstances in this case clearly show the voluntariness of the surrender. Upon learning that the RTC had finally determined the presence of probable cause and even before the issuance and implementation of the warrant, Gerry already gave himself up, acknowledging culpability. This was bolstered by his eventual plea of guilt. The mere filing of the information and/or issuance of a warrant of arrest will not automatically make the surrender “involuntary”. It is still voluntary when he surrenders immediately upon learning that a warrant has been issued and before it is served on him (De Vera vs. De Vera, G.R. 172832, April 7, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]