G.R. Nos. 76338-39. February 26, 1990.

*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RE-NATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, accused-appellant.

FACTS:

Accused Renato, then eighteen (18) years and seven (7) months of age, and the deceased Francis, fifteen (15) years old, were classmates in the
third year of high school of the Divine Word College in Tagbilaran City. They were close friends, being not only classmates but also members of
the same gang, the Bronx gang. Renato had been to the house where Francis and his parents lived, on one or two occasions. On those occasions,
Francis’ mother noticed that Renato had a handgun with him. Francis was then advised by his mother to distance himself from Renato. Francis
withdrew from the Bronx gang. The relationship between Renato and Francis turned sour.

The strained relationship between the two (2) erstwhile friends was aggravated in late November 1984 when Francis learned that Renato,
together with other members of the Bronx gang, was looking for him, apparently with the intention of beating him up. Further deterioration of
their relationship occurred sometime in the first week of December 1984, when graffiti appeared on the wall of the third year high school
classroom and on the armrest of a chair in that classroom, deprecating the Bronx gang and describing Renato as “bayot” (homosexual).5 Renato
attributed the graffiti to Francis.

At 2pm of 14 December 1984, Renato entered Room 15 of their high school building to attend English III class, where Francis is also a classmate.
Renato had placed a scrapbook he prepared for their next Mathematics class on his chair while he approached their English III teacher (Mrs.
Liliosa Baluma) to raise a question. Upon returning to his chair, Renato then saw Francis sitting on the said scrapbook which angered him that he
promptly kicked the chair where the latter was seated. Francis explained that he had not intentionally sat down on Renato’s scrapbook. A fistfight
would have ensued if not for the intervention of their classmates and two teachers (Mrs. Baluma and Mr. Pasilbas). When the two had calmed,
Mrs. Baluma resumed her class.

Subsequently, Renato slipped out of the classroom in the middle of their English III class to go home and get a gun. The next Math class under
Mr. Pasilbas started when Renato suddenly burst into the room, shut the door and shouted “Where is Francis?”. Upon seeing Francis, Renato
fired four times before it hit the victim on the head and fell to the floor.

After having shot Francis, Renato was found alone outside Room 15 when a teacher (Mr. Pablo Baluma), unaware that the latter was the killer,
asked if he could help Francis who was still alive inside the room. Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, aimed at the chest of Francis and fired
once more.

Thereafter, Renato proceeded to the faculty room where he held hostages some teachers and students, and reloaded his gun. Philippine
Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Lazo arrived and surrounded the faculty room.

After some time, Renato’s father and brother pleaded for his surrender. Renato then turned over his gun to his brother while Capt. Lazo placed
Renato under arrest.

The teachers and students afterwards rushed Frances to Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital where the he was pronounced dead on arrival.

On 14 December 1984, RTC of Tagbilaran City held respondent Renato Tac-an guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the crime of Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunitions qualified with Murder to suffer a penalty of death. Respondent was also held guilty beyond reasonable doubt to
the crime of Murder.

One of the claims of the accused is that he had voluntarily surrendered hence the trial court should have considered that mitigating circumstance
in his favor. (marami siya contentions pero ito yung relevant sa topic)

ISSUE: W/N there is a voluntary surrender which should be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.

RULING: NO, there was no voluntary surrender. Hence, no mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused.

RATIO:

As a rule, the following requisites of voluntary surrender are:

1. Offender had not been actually arrested
2. He surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent
3. Surrender was voluntary

In this case, the accused failed to comply with the requisites for voluntary surrender. Firstly, Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, by handing
over the weapon through the balustrade of the faculty room. Secondly, he surrendered the gun to his brother, who was not in any case a person
in authority nor an agent of a person in authority. Thirdly, Renato did not surrender himself: he was arrested by Capt. Lazo. The fact that he did
not resist arrest, did not constitute voluntary surrender. Finally, if it be assumed that Renato had surrendered himself, such surrender cannot be
regarded as voluntary and spontaneous. Renato was holed up in the faculty room, in effect holding some teachers and students as hostages. The
faculty room was surrounded by Philip-pine Constabulary soldiers and there was no escape open to him. Hence, he was not entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
 G.R. No. 152289. January 14, 2004.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, appellee, vs. MARLON JUAN Y LESTE, appellant.

FACTS:

On April 23, 2001, around 10:00 p.m., Yolanda Juan opened the door of their house to let her son, herein appellant Marlon Juan, in. Deogracias
Juan (Yolanda’s husband and appellant’s father) who was resting inside their bedroom could hear his wife and son’s voice. Appellant who was
high on drugs demanded delicious food for dinner. Moments after, Deogracias heard the throwing and breaking of plates. Then he heard Marvin
(appellant’s brother) yelling “Ning Nanang natayen” (“Mother is dead already”). Deogracias immediately proceeded to the porch where Marvin’s
voice came from and saw appellant in the act of stabbing Marvin. Deogracias grabbed the asador (pointed iron bar) from the appellant and they
wrestled for its possession. Eventually, Deogracias got control of the asador. Appellant then drew a knife from his waist and tried to stab
Deogracias but the latter was able to wrest the knife away from the appellant. Appellant ran away. When Deogracias finally turned his attention
to his wife, only then did he realize that indeed she was already dead.

The statement of Marvin Juan to the effect that “he was the brother of the accused and that he saw the accused kill their mother” was no longer
heard by the trial court because the appellant admitted the truth of such testimony.

Trial court ruled that it was “clear as the snow of the Alps” that appellant was guilty of the crime of parricide and sentenced him to suffer the
supreme penalty of death.

Appellant questions the death penalty imposed on him before the SC. Appellant contends that the proper penalty imposable on him is reclusion
perpetua, not death.

ISSUE: W/N the death penalty shall be imposed upon the accused

RULING: NO, the ruling of the Trial Court regarding the imposition of the penalty of death has been modified. Proper penalty is reclusion perpetua,
not death.

RATIO:

Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code (hereafter the Code), the crime of parricide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Since
the penalty for the crime of parricide is composed of two indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death), the imposition of the proper
indivisible penalty on appellant is governed by Article 63 of the Code which provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.

xxx xxx xxx

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the application
thereof:

1.When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

2.When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

3.When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.

4.When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow them to
offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.

To determine the proper penalty, it must first be determined whether or not there is aggravating or mitigating circumstance. In this case, no
aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information. Thus, no aggravating circumstances can be appreciated against the appellant. With
regard to the presence of any mitigating circumstances, Court held that the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
confession of guilt.

Under Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilty
if “he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.” The following requisites must
concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent court
trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution
 In this case, appellant made his confession of guilt before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution since he pleaded guilty during the
arraignment. The appellant also confessed voluntarily and spontaneously despite knowing the serious nature of the charge against him. Lastly,
appellant made his confession openly, that is, before the judge and the parties in a hearing. Clearly therefore, all the requisites of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary confession were present.

Since there is there is mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance, a lesser penalty shall be imposed which reclusion perpetua.