G.R. No. L-19133, November 27, 1964
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX MAGPANTAY and EUGENIO ALCARAZ, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of June 2, 1959, in Barrio Villapagasa, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro, accused Felix Magpantay, Eugenio Alcaraz, Arnulfo Estabaya, and Catalino Fajardo, all armed with unlicensed carbine rifles, ambushed a passenger jeep. They shot and killed ten individuals: Lope Cadacio, Emilio Claveria, Doroteo Malabanan, Albino Sarian, Rosendo Raes, Ignacio Francisco, Hermogena Atilano, Catalino Gervacio, Filomeno Macalalad, and Alejandro Fernandez. The information charged the accused with multiple murder, alleging the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and taking advantage of superior strength. It also mentioned, in the narrative portion, the circumstances of nocturnity and band. All accused initially pleaded guilty, though Fajardo later changed his plea to not guilty. The trial court, in its decision, convicted the three who pleaded guilty. It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength against them. For Arnulfo Estabaya, it credited two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) and imposed reclusion perpetua. For Magpantay and Alcaraz, it credited only the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, rejected their claim of voluntary surrender and (for Magpantay) lack of instruction, and imposed the death penalty.
Magpantay and Alcaraz appealed, contending that the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in their favor. After the crime, they claimed to have immediately sought to surrender to barrio officials, who refused as they were out of jurisdiction. Magpantay eventually surrendered, unarmed and in tears, to Mayor Angel Rodriguez on June 10, 1959, who then turned him over to PC Colonel Ver. Alcaraz, through co-accused Fajardo, sent a note of surrender to PC Sgt. Araman, was contacted, and peacefully surrendered his firearm on June 13 while already en route to the poblacion with the sergeant. The prosecution presented a PC sergeant who claimed the area had been cordoned by 160 soldiers, implying the accused had no escape, but failed to prove when this cordon was established or that the accused were aware of it.

ISSUE

1. Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of appellants Magpantay and Alcaraz.
2. Whether the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information should all be considered against the accused.

RULING

The Supreme Court MODIFIED the trial court’s decision.
1. On Voluntary Surrender: The Court held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated for both Magpantay and Alcaraz. The essence of voluntary surrender requires that it be spontaneous, showing an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and expense of capture. The prosecution’s claim of a military cordon was not substantiated; it was not shown when it was established or that the appellants knew of it. Their actions demonstrated sincerity: Magpantay persistently sought an official to surrender to and finally did so unarmed and emotionally. Alcaraz, after initiating contact, peacefully accompanied the PC sergeant and surrendered his weapon. The fact that PC authorities waited at designated places to receive them, rather than mount an assault, corroborated the voluntary nature of their surrender. The trial court’s error in not crediting this circumstance was corrected.
2. On Aggravating Circumstances: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that only the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and superior strength should be considered. While the narrative of the information mentioned treachery, evident premeditation, superior strength, nocturnity, and band, the subsequent paragraph specifically alleged only treachery (as qualifying) and evident premeditation and superior strength (as generic aggravating). This separate specification could have misled the accused into pleading guilty under the belief that only these two aggravating circumstances were being pressed against them. Any ambiguity in an information must be resolved in favor of the accused. Therefore, the other circumstances (nocturnity, band) were not considered.
Application of Circumstances and Penalty: With both aggravating circumstances (evident premeditation and superior strength) now balanced by the two mitigating circumstances (plea of guilty and voluntary surrender) for each appellant, the penalty for each of the ten murders is reduced to reclusion perpetua in its medium period. Applying the rules on successive service of penalties under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the appellants shall serve these sentences successively, up to the maximum of 40 years imprisonment. The award of civil indemnity was affirmed.

DOCTRINES

1. Voluntary Surrender as a Mitigating Circumstance: To be considered mitigating, surrender must be voluntary, spontaneous, and unconditional, demonstrating the intent to submit to authorities either due to acknowledgment of guilt or a desire to spare the government the effort of capture. The mere fact that authorities may have been in the vicinity does not negate voluntariness if it is not proven that the accused surrendered out of a belief that escape was impossible.
2. Construction of Criminal Informations (In Dubio Pro Reo): Ambiguities in the allegations of an information must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused. Where an information lists multiple circumstances in its narrative but subsequently specifies only certain ones for emphasis, the accused may reasonably rely on the specified circumstances in entering a plea. Any doubt as to which circumstances are formally alleged and intended to be proven should be resolved in favor of the accused.
3. Application of Multiple Penalties and the Three-Fold Rule: When an accused is convicted of multiple complex crimes (like multiple murders), the penalty for each crime is imposed separately. Their successive service is governed by Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, which limits the total duration of imprisonment to three times the length of the most severe penalty imposed, but in no case shall it exceed 40 years.
4. Plea of Guilty as Mitigating Circumstance: A plea of guilty is mitigating when it is made prior to the presentation of prosecution evidence, demonstrating remorse and saving the court and witnesses time and effort. It is a generic mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code.