G.R. No. L-68421 March 20, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CLEMENTE RADOMES Y SABIDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Clemente Radomes, was convicted of Murder by the Samar Regional Trial Court for the killing of Rosalina Acaba in the early morning of December 2, 1982. The prosecution’s eyewitness, Edita Sabuco, testified that from her balcony, she clearly saw Radomes, armed with a bolo, suddenly approach Rosalina from behind and hack her. When Rosalina turned, Radomes stabbed her multiple times until she fell. Radomes then fled but later reappeared, threatening and wounding Rosalina’s sons, Juanito and Ramon, who had come to her aid. Patrolman Leonardo Distrajo testified that upon responding, he saw Radomes running to his house with a bolo. The officer ordered him down, and Radomes complied, surrendered the weapon, and was arrested. At the municipal building, Radomes admitted to the killing.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming that Rosalina’s sons were responsible for her death. The trial court, however, found the prosecution’s evidence credible, noting the clear visibility from the eyewitness’s vantage point due to a nearby mercury lamp and moonlight. The court convicted Radomes of Murder qualified by treachery, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present. The legal logic is grounded in the requisites for voluntary surrender: that the offender has not been actually arrested, surrenders himself to a person in authority or an agent thereof, and the surrender is spontaneous. The Court examined the testimony of Patrolman Distrajo, which established that when the officer ordered Radomes to come down from his house, Radomes complied without resistance, bringing the bolo with him. He did not attempt to flee or hide and voluntarily submitted to arrest before any physical apprehension was made. This conduct demonstrated an acknowledgment of guilt and an intention to save the authorities the trouble of capture, fulfilling the conditions for the mitigating circumstance.
Consequently, while the Court affirmed the conviction for Murder, finding treachery in the sudden and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim, it modified the penalty. With the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstances to offset it, the imposable penalty was reduced by one degree. The Court thus sentenced Radomes to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The civil indemnity was also increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos.