People v.

Pinca
Mitigating circumstances, Paragraph 7 | November 17, 1999 | Panganiban, J.

Nature of case: Certiorari/ Automatic review

Digest maker: Feliz Ecap

SUMMARY: On January 16, 1995 Joel Pinca (accused) after having some drinks with ​Gerry Abenir
(witness) at a bakery, then rode a Passenger motorcycle (habal habal) together with Abenir to alight
at Del carmen, bohol and Dorol, bohol. Nearing their first stop which is the home of the witness,
accused spotted ​Conrado Angcahan (victim) walking in an unsteady manner. Both of them got down
from the motorcycle then and their, during which accused told the witness that the person walking in
the unsteady manner was the guy who splashed some liquor on him earlier, and that he would wait
for him to get near. The accused got a piece of wood, then once the victim was near enough
proceeded to hit him in the head rendering the victim unconscious. The head trauma caused by the
piece of wood eventually resulted in the death of the victim. On May 22, 1995 an information was
submitted accusing Joel Pinca of murder, and on January 8, 1997 the court found the accused to be
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder as qualified by treachery. He is hereby sentenced to be
punished with reclusion perpetua to death. The case was elevated to the SC for automatic review, in
view of the death sentence.
DOCTRINE: ​Voluntary surrender​; 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.
For it to be appreciated as mitigating the following must be present: (1) the offender has not been
actually arrested, (2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority, and (3) the surrender was
voluntary.

FACTS:
1. Joel Pinca on the 16th day of January 1995 armed with a round piece of wood, with intent to kill,
and without justifiable motive, treachery and abuse of superior strength , did then and there
willfully and unlawfully and feloniously and suddenly attack and assault and strike one Conrado
Angcahan leading to his death.
2. The morning after the incident police came to Pincas house, where in he denied any knowledge
of the murder incident;
3. He then distanced himself from the place of the incident by going to Tagbiliran City, and when
he found out that the police came to his wife’s work place to find him, he came back to Balilihan
to clear his name in the police station. But being the prime suspect, he was instead incarcerated.
4. During the cross examination of testimonies given (Pinca and Abenir), and the findings in the
autopsy report it was found that the testimony of Pinca not only had discrepancies with the
autopsy report but with his own testimony as well. Because it kept changing during the course
of the examination.
5. On January 8, 1997 accused was found guilty by the trial court of murder as qualified by
treachery.
6. Joel Pinca through his counsel replied with a 27 page brief, finding the ruling of the trial court to
erroneous, one of which is how the trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a
mitigating circumstance.
7. The court found that voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated in
this case because of the Pinca’s actions after the incident are not marks of voluntary surrender
as he even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident when he went to stay in
Tagbiliran City. When he went to the police station at Balilihan, Bohol to clear his name that was
not a sign of voluntary surrender.

ISSUE/S
1. W/N: The trial court erred in not appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance -NO

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that Appellant
Joel Pinca shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, not death, and shall pay the heirs of Conrado
Angcahan.
SO ORDERED