The Supreme Court (SC) has asked trial court judges to evaluate meticulously, “not as cold-hearted automatons or soulless supercomputers,” the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender of a person accused and ordered arrested for a criminal offense.

It said that judges on the frontlines of justice are expected to adjudge each case wholly, fully, and fairly as discerning persons learned in the law and literate in life experience.

It pointed out that even a single judge’s role in the administration of the country’s penal laws can indeed have far-reaching consequences for the parties and for human society as a whole.

“The law may be harsh, but it need not be harsher,” the SC stressed in a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan in the case docketed as GR No. 258592.

Under Paragraph 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a mitigating circumstance that can reduce the penalty is when an accused voluntarily surrenders to a person in authority or voluntarily confesses his guilty before the court prior to the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence.

A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that the High Court underscored that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender must be evaluated based on the person’s true intent and the totality of the circumstances.

The man applied for a clearance at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). During processing, his name registered a “hit,” showing he had a pending case. He admitted the pending case against him before the NBI officer.

He was instructed to return after one week while the records were being verified. When he came back, the NBI officer confirmed he had a pending bigamy case and an outstanding warrant for his arrest issued 13 years earlier.

He then told the officer that he will surrender and sought help to post bail. The arrest warrant was then served on him.

The NBI later issued a certificate stating that he voluntarily surrendered to their office.

However, the return of the warrant and order of release described him as having been “arrested.”

During arraignment, the accused first pleaded not guilty but later entered into a plea bargain, asking the court to consider his voluntary surrender and guilty plea.

The regional trial court (RTC) convicted him of bigamy and considered his plea of guilt, but ruled that he did not voluntarily surrender. It relied on the warrant’s return and release order, which stated that he was “arrested,” and noted that the case had been pending for 13 years because he could not be located.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision with a ruling that the man went to the NBI not to surrender but to apply for a clearance.

The SC disagreed with the rulings of both the trial court and the CA.

It said that under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, voluntary surrender requires that the offender had not been arrested; they surrendered themselves to a person in authority or its agent; and the surrender was voluntary.

In this case, the man returned to the NBI and said he would surrender before the arrest warrant was actually served on him. He had not yet been arrested. He also surrendered to an NBI officer, a person in authority.

As to the voluntariness of his surrender, the SC emphasized that if he intended to evade arrest, he would not have returned to the NBI.

While his first visit was to secure a clearance, his decision to return despite knowing there might be an active case shows his willingness to cooperate with the authorities.

The SC also clarified that while he knew about the pending case, there was no proof that he knew a warrant for his arrest had already been issued.

It also noted the absence of any attempt to flee, his open use of his real name, and the fact that he returned to the NBI on his own.

With the ruling, the SC reduced the man’s jail term from a maximum of six years to a maximum of four years in prison.

The SC said that voluntary surrender must be viewed with a “more considerate and broad-minded approach” once guilt has been established.

It stressed that voluntary surrender must be assessed through the totality of circumstances, laying down the following guiding principles:

1. The surrender must show that the offender admits their guilt or wishes to spare authorities the effort and expense of locating and arresting them.

2. 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.

3. The lapse of time between the issuance of the arrest warrant and the offender’s actual surrender cannot, by itself, negate voluntariness.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. If the records do not clearly show that the offender voluntarily surrendered, that doubt cannot be resolved in their favor.