Dear PAO,
My brother applied for a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance and was informed that he had a “hit,” as there was a pending case against him, which he readily acknowledged. He was instructed to return to the NBI after three days. Upon his return, the NBI officers confirmed the existence of an outstanding warrant of arrest to which my brother voluntarily surrendered. My question is: may his voluntary surrender be appreciated to reduce the penalty that may be imposed upon him? Thank you.
Igi
Dear Igi,
The issue raised finds guidance in the case of Rodrigo Loza y Apolonio vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 258592 [Formerly UDK No. 17170], August 12, 2025), wherein the Supreme Court, speaking through Honorable Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, articulated the controlling principles in determining the existence and appreciation of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.
Article 13(7) of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, provides that it shall be considered a mitigating circumstance when “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.” Jurisprudence consistently holds that mitigating circumstances do not excuse the offender from criminal liability, but they operate to reduce the imposable penalty by reason of diminished culpability.
In the afore-mentioned case, the Supreme Court emphasized that voluntary surrender must be appreciated under a “more considerate and broad-minded approach,” particularly where the accused’s culpability has been established. The Court underscored that the determination of voluntariness is not to be confined to rigid standards but must be evaluated in light of the totality of circumstances, guided by the following considerations:
– The surrender must show that the offender admits their guilt or wishes to spare authorities the effort and expense of locating and arresting them.
– The issuance of an arrest warrant is separate from the act of surrender. However, if the offender knew about the warrant and tried to avoid arrest, this can negate any claim of voluntary surrender.
– The lapse of time between the issuance of the arrest warrant and the offender’s actual surrender cannot, by itself, negate voluntariness.
– A high likelihood of arrest must be assessed together with signs that the offender tried to flee or lived as a fugitive, not simply with the fact that an arrest warrant had already been issued.
– The offender’s intention at the time of surrender must be evaluated together with all other factors. The offender is not required to surrender at the first opportunity.
– If the records do not clearly show that the offender voluntarily surrendered, that doubt cannot be resolved in their favor.
Correlatively, the Court further emphasized that the appreciation of voluntary surrender is inherently fact-sensitive, and must be resolved on a case-to-case basis, taking into account the peculiar circumstances of each case and prevailing jurisprudence.
Applying the foregoing principles, the act of your brother in personally presenting himself before the officers of the NBI may be properly considered as voluntary surrender. Consequently, such act may be appreciated in his favor as a mitigating circumstance, thereby warranting the imposition of a reduced penalty.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
