El PROVEEDOR declara a través de su (apoderado/representante) que: .1 A) TRATÁNDOSE DE PERSONAS MORALES

The essence of voluntary surrender requires that the offender, after having committed the crime, had evaded the law enforcers and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. In short, he continues to elude arrest. If, under this circumstance, the offender would come out in the open and he gives himself up, his act of doing so will be considered as indicative of repentance and he also saves the government the time and the expense of looking for him.

As a general rule, if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and he went with the responding law enforcers meekly, voluntary surrender is not applicable.

However, there is a ruling that if after committing the crime, the offender did not flee and instead waited for the law enforcers to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he used in killing the victim, the ruling was that voluntary surrender is mitigating. In this case, the offender had the opportunity to go into hiding, the fact that he did not flee is voluntary surrender.

However, if he comes out from hiding because he is seriously ill and he went to get medical treatment, the surrender is not considered as indicative of remorse or repentance. The surrender here is only done out of convenience to save his own self. Hence, it is not mitigating.

Even if the offender may have gone into hiding, if the law enforcers had already known where he is hiding and it is just a matter of time before he is flushed out of that place, then even if the law enforcers do not know exactly where he was hiding and he would come out, this is not voluntary surrender.

Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been issued against the offender is immaterial and irrelevant. The criterion is whether or not the offender had gone into hiding or had the opportunity to go into hiding and the law enforcers do not know of his whereabouts. If he would give up, his act of surrendering under such circumstance indicates that he is willing to accept the consequences of the wrong he has done and also thereby saves the government the effort, the time and the expenses to be incurred in looking for him.

Surrender to be considered voluntary and thus mitigating, must be spontaneous, demonstrating an

intent to submit himself unconditionally to the person in authority or his agent in authority, because (1) he acknowledges his guilt (2) he wishes to save the government the trouble and expenses of searching and capturing him. Where the reason for the surrender of the accused was to insure his safety, his arrest by policemen pursuing him being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous.

Q. If the accused escapes from the scene of the crime in order to seek advice from a

lawyer, and the latter ordered him to surrender voluntarily to the authorities, which the accused followed by surrendering himself to the municipal mayor, will his surrender be considered mitigating?

A. The answer is yes, because he fled to the scene of a crime not to escape but to

seek legal advice.

Q. Supposing that after the accused met a vehicular accident causing multiple

immediately thereafter, will his surrender mitigate his criminal liability because of Art. 13?

A. The answer is no, because in cases involving felonies committed by means of culpa, the court is authorized under Art. 365 to impose a penalty upon offender without regard to the rules on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

• REQUISITES FOR PLEA OF GUILTY

a) offender spontaneously confessed his guilt

b) confession of guilt was made in open court (competent court)

c) confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution • To be mitigating, the plea of guilty must be without conditions. But conditional

plea of guilty may still be mitigating if the conditions imposed by the accused are found to be meritorious.

• Plea of guilty not applicable to special law.

• plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to have plea considered as Mitigating Circumstance

• plea in the RTC in a case appealed from the MTC is not mitigating - must make plea at the first opportunity

• plea during the preliminary investigation is no plea at all

• even if during arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty, he is entitled to Mitigating Circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the fiscal could present his evidence

• plea to a lesser charge is not Mitigating Circumstance because to be voluntary plea of guilty, must be to the offense charged

• plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original info, is Mitigating Circumstance

• present Rules of Court require that even if accused pleaded guilty to a capital offense, its mandatory for court to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused being likewise entitled to present evidence to prove, inter alia, Mitigating Circumstance

8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some

PHYSICAL DEFECT w/c thus restricts his means of action, defense or

communication w/ his fellow beings.

• Basis: one suffering from physical defect which restricts him does not have complete freedom of action and therefore, there is diminution of that element of voluntariness.

* The law says that the offender is deaf and dumb, meaning not only deaf but also dumb, or that he is blind, meaning in both eyes, but even if he is only deaf and not dumb, or dumb only but not deaf, or blind only in one eye, he I still entitled to a mitigating circumstance under this article as long as his physical defects restricts his means of action, defense communication with his fellowmen. The restriction however, must relate to the mode of committing the crime.

• No distinction between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons

• The physical defect of the offender should restrict his means of action, defense or communication with fellow beings, this has been extended to cover cripples, armless people even stutterers.

• The circumstance assumes that with their physical defect, the offenders do not have a complete freedom of action therefore diminishing the element of voluntariness in the commission of a crime.

* The physical defect that a person may have must have a relation to the commission of the crime. Not any physical defect will affect the crime. It will only do so if it has some relation to the crime committed. This circumstance must also have a bearing on the crime committed and must depend on how the crime was committed.

9. Such ILLNESS of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power

of the offender w/o depriving him of consciousness of his acts.

• Basis: diminution of intelligence and intent • Requisites:

a) illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power b) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts

* If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will power but deprives him of the consciousness of his acts, it becomes an exempting circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility.

• deceased mind, not amounting to insanity, may give place to mitigation

* Feeblemindedness of the accused who, in a fit of jealousy, stabbed his wife, then carried her up to the house, laid her on the floor and then lay down beside her, warrants the finding in his favor of this mitigating circumstance. (Pp vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658)

10. And ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE of a similar nature and analogous to those

above-mentioned

• Examples of “any other circumstance”:

a) defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70 years old

b) outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of grave offense

c) impulse of jealous feeling, similar to PASSION AND OBFUSCATION d) voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender

e) extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state of necessity f) esprit de corps is similar to passion or obfuscation

Analogous cases

* The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender. The act of a thief in leading the authorities to the place where he disposed of the loot has been considered as analogous or equivalent to voluntary surrender.

* Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity. However, this is not so where the offender became impoverished because of his own way of living his life. If his lifestyle is one of having so many vices, as a result of which he became poor, his subsequent stealing because of his poverty will not be considered mitigated by incomplete state of necessity.

• NOT analogous:

a) killing wrong person

c) running amuck is not mitigating

• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE which arise from: a) moral attributes of the offender

Example: Juan and Tomas killed Pedro. Juan acted w/ PASSION AND OBFUSCATION. Only Juan will be entitled to Mitigating Circumstance

b) private relations with the offended party

Example: Juan stole his brother’s watch. Juan sold it to Pedro, who knew it was stolen. The circumstance of relation arose from private relation of Juan and the brother. Does not mitigate Pedro.

c) other personal cause

Example: Minor, acting with discernment robbed Juan. Pedro, passing by, helped the minor. Circumstance of minority, mitigates liability of minor only.

Shall serve to mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories to whom the circumstances are attendant.

• Circumstances which are neither exempting nor mitigating

a) mistake in the blow

b) mistake in the identity of the victim

c) entrapment of the accused

d) accused is over 18 years old

e) performance of a righteous action

Example: Juan saved the lives of 99 people but caused the death of the last person, he is still criminally liable

Note: Under the Rules of Court on plea bargaining, the accused is allowed to negotiate with the prosecution during his arraignment, to enter a plea for a lesser offense, or for the consideration of mitigating circumstances under Art. 13; for the prosecution to forego or delete aggravating circumstances, without regard to the rules and jurisprudence mentioned above.