People vs. Quimzon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, 
v. 
RICKY QUIMZON, Appellant.

G.R. No. 133541
April 14, 2004

FACTS: 

In an Information dated July 28, 1992, appellant, Ricky Quimzon and three oher persons, namely Salvacion Lascarom, Canoto Cabero and Edgardo Detona were charged with the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 7^th day of March 1992, in the Municipality of Burauen, Province of Leyte, Philipines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another with treachery and abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniuosly attack, assault, strike, stab and wound one Marlo Casiong with short bolos locally known as “pisao” which accused provided themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said Marlo Casiong with fatal wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his death shortly thereafter.

Appellant surrendered to the police authorities on August 18, 1994 while his other co-accused remain at-large. When arraigned on September 28, 1994, appellant, with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged.  Thereafter, trial ensued.

The RTC rendered its Decision finding the accused Ricky Quimzon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s Decision.  Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not the appellant Ricky Quimzon is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender?

HELD:

It appears in the Commitment Order, dated August 14, 1994, issued by the Municipal Trial Judge of the MTC of Burauen, Leyte, that appellant “voluntarily surrendered to SPO1 Josefino Agustin of PNP Burauen, Leyte on August 18, 1994.”  An examination of the records reveals that it can not be considered as a mitigating circumstance.  For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surreder to be appreciated, the accused must satisfactorily comply with three requisites: (1) he has not been actually arrested; (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary.  There must be a showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused acknowledges his guilt or wishes to spare them the trouble and expense concominant to his capture.

The surrender of appellant was far from being spontaneous and unconditional.  The warrant of arrest is date June 17, 1992 and all the accused, including appellant, remained at-large, which prompted the Executive Judge of the RTC of Palo, Leyte to achieve the case.  It took appellant two years before he finally surrendered to the police.  In between said period, appellant, through counsel, filed a Motion to Fix Bail Bond without surrendering his person to the jurisdiction of the trial court.  Records do not reveal that the motion had been acted upon by the trial court.  This act of appellant may be considered as a condition set by him before he surrenders to proper authorities, thus preventing his subsequent act of surrendering from being considered as a mitigating circumstance.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.