Topic: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (Voluntary Surrender / Intoxication)

People VS Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999

FACTS:
Witness Gerry Abenir disembarked from a passenger bus and entered a bakeshop. He saw accused Joel
Pinca who made a remark that somebody splashed a liquor on him and that he could have injured that
person if not for the shop owner. Gerry and Joel rode a habal-habal and while on the way, they passed
by the victim Conrado Angcahan. Realizing it was the one who splashed liquor on him, Joel waited for
Conrado, got a piece of wood and suddenly struck the latter on the head. Gerry ran away, but decided
to report the incident to the police the next morning. While dressing up, the police arrived and inquired
about what happened to which Gerry obliged. They proceeded to the Joel’s house who denied any
participation.
The defense related a contradicting story of what happened and pointed to Gerry as suspect for having
asked by Conrado for a cigarette at the bakeshop. Joel said that after drinking at the bakeshop, he rode
a habal-habal with Gerry and passed by Conrado. Realizing he was the one who asked for cigarette,
Gerry boxed with Conrado and used a piece of wood to hit him, but the latter parried the blows until
Gerry struck him on the head. The next morning, a police officer and Gerry arrived at Joel’s house asking
for information but because Gerry did not made signs not to talk, accused did not give information to
the police. After the investigation, he proceeded to Tagbilaran City to fetch his wife. He received an
information that the police of Balilihan, Bohol were looking for him. He presented himself to the police
to clear his name but was put in jail.
Convicted of murder, accused appealed. Included in his contentions are the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender and intoxication.

ISSUE(S):

1. Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is present.

2. Whether or not intoxication could be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance for the accused.

RULING:

1.
No, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not present.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested, (2) the offender surrendered to a person in
authority, and (3) the surrender was voluntary. If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to
ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence
not voluntary.
Denying to the police any personal knowledge of the crime, he even tried to distance himself from the
place of the incident by going to Tagbilaran City. It was only when he learned that he had become a
suspect and that the police were looking for him even in Tagbilaran that he finally went to the police
station, but only "to clear his name." Such acts do not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to
the authorities.
2.
No, intoxication can not be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance for the accused.
A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating
reason. Also, that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic
drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.
Appellant cannot simply rely on those statements of the prosecution that he was intoxicated during
the attack. He must present convincing proof of the nature and the effect of his intoxication. What
appears undisputed is that he had a glass of beer prior to the murder incident. Under normal
circumstances, a glass of beer is not so intoxicating as to diminish a man's rational capacity. It was not
proven at all that such amount of alcohol blurred his reason.
Therefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed.