San Beda College of Law

Mendiola, Manila

CRIMINAL LAW I
ASSIGNMENT NO. 4

(ARTICLE 13 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE)

DOMINGUEZ CAR THEFT GANG

Contributors:

ALBERTO, JUDIE ANNE D.C. GIRON, JOSE JUSTIN C,

ALVARO, THERESE ANNE F.
CAMACHO, LORENA LOIS M.
CAOILE, KIMBERLY CLAIRE P.
CASTILLO, FRANCIS ANGELO L.
CATBAGAN, RAPHAEL S.
CELZO, CAMILLE C.
CRUZ, LOUIE LOU E.
CUBE, EUNICE D.
CUBILLO, KYLE LORENZO L.
CUNANAN, MILANE ANNE C.
DE GUZMAN, JOSEPH NOEL T.
DELA RAMA, CZESCA ANGELICA P.
ENFECTANA, MA. ANGELICA M.
FOJAS,ANGELICA N.
GACULA, RAYA RISHA D.
GINGOYON, CORDELL JERICHO M.
GUERRERO, CARL EIHMER P.
HERMOGENES, REA SHANINE C.
LAMORENA, ANGELICO JOSHUA U.
LECHUGA, ANDREA KLEIN T.
MAGNAYON, PAOLO MILLAN A.
MARQUEZ, RIA YZABELA G.
OLABRE, PAULLINE JOYCE N.
PABUSTAN, MHERYZA D.C
PALOS, ARCTURUS VIKTOR R.
PASCUAL, PAOLO ENRINO T.
PEDRIA, NICHOLE PATRICIA B.
SANTOS, RAPH KEVIN L.
SERRANO, JOSEPH NICHOLAS R.
TAMAYO, MICHAEL ANGELO G.
TUMBALI, FATIMA MAE D.
I. Overview

Mitigating circumstances are conditions the courts may take into account in determining
the criminal liability of the defendant. These circumstances do not justify the offense done by the
defendant or exempt him from incurring criminal liability. They simply reduce the penalty the
court may impose on the defendant.

Mitigating circumstances or causes attenuates are those which, if present in the commission
of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.

These circumstances are based on either the diminution of freedom of action, intelligence
or intent, or on the offender's lesser perversity. However, voluntary surrender and plea of guilt
which, being circumstances that occur after the commission of the offense, show the accuseds
respect for the law (voluntary surrender) and remorse and acceptance of punishment (plea of guilt),
thereby necessitating a lesser penalty to effect his rehabilitation (based on the Positivist School).

Mitigating circumstances fall into two (2) categories: ordinary mitigating and privileged
mitigating. Ordinary mitigating circumstances are those that are enumerated in Art. 13 of the
Revised Penal Code. Privileged mitigating circumstances are found in Article 69 of the Revised
Penal Code and Article 68 as amended by Republic Act 9344. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset
by an aggravating circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the penalty provided by law
for the crime in its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty. Privileged mitigating produces
the effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided
by law for the crime.
Absence of requisites necessary to justify an act or to exempt from criminal liability may
give place to mitigation of criminal liability. A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact
absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances arising from the same fact.
 The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating. However,
incomplete self-defense, is treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance if majority of the
requisites concurred. This means that if unlawful aggression AND either reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it or lack of sufficient provocation are present, it will be
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. Otherwise, it will be treated as an ordinary
mitigating circumstance. (Reyes, citing Art. 69).

It is also necessary to correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64. Article 13 is meaningless
without knowing the rules of imposing penalties under Articles 63 and 64.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant;
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor,
he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80;
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act;
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees;
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation;
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence
for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings;
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts;
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.

Overview of the Issue

On January 13, 2011, used-car dealer Venson Evangelista was murdered in Pampanga
during a carjack. Among the accused were Raymond Dominguez and his brother, Roger
Dominguez. Also part of the group was star witness, Alfred Mendiola, who provided a written
narrative of what transpired in the crime.
Alfred Mendiola stated that they planned to carnap Evangelistas car at an apartment in
Greenville Subdivision in San Fernando, Pampanga. He further narrated that killing the dealer was
also part of the plan. Mendiola, Evangelista and a certain Joel went on a test drive, posing as
buyers of the Toyota Land Cruiser. Evangelista drove said car, and was accompanied from behind.

Mendiola reported that Joel pointed his gun at Evangelista as Rolly got off the Pajero and
went inside the Toyota through the drivers seat to also point his gun at Evangelista. After taking
control of the Land Cruiser, Mendiola was asked to go to a mall to buy two tires and a gallon of
gasoline, while Evangelista was still inside. His hands, eyes and mouth were bound and covered
by a gray packaging tape. Thereafter, Evangelista was shot several times and burned beyond
recognition. The fake customers turned out to be members of the Dominguez car theft gang,
according to investigators.
In another report, Raymond Dominguez gave himself up to Senior Superintendent Wendy
Rosario. Written in an article, Dominguez said he would rather go to the police authorities to
voluntarily explain himself instead of waiting for the police to issue a warrant against him.
No warrant of arrest was issued and served as Raymond Dominguez readily surrendered to
the authorities but his brother did not do the same. While in the custody, Raymond merely stated
that he did not know where his brother was.
 The voluntary surrender by Raymond Dominguez in the carjack incident constitutes a
mitigating circumstance.

II. Discussion and application related to assigned articles and cases

The aforementioned case falls under the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
mentioned in Par. 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. But before a voluntary surrender shall
be considered, the three requisites of voluntary surrender must be present:
1. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent.
3. That the surrender was voluntary and spontaneous.

Voluntariness

In order to be appreciated by the court, voluntary surrender must be spontaneous in such manner
that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
because (1) he acknowledge his guilt or (2) because he wishes to save the authorities from
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred for his search and capture.

In the case at bar, Raymond Dominguez who is one of the suspected leaders of a car theft gang
(Dominguez Carjack Gang), voluntarily surrendered himself to Senior Superintendent Wendy
Rosario, officer-in-charge of the Bulacan police and concurrent deputy director of the Central
Luzon police, prior to the issuance of warrant of arrest. It must be noted however that his voluntary
surrender was not appreciated solely on the basis that he did so prior to the issuance of the said
warrant. The law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest. He was entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because as stated above, either because he
acknowledge his guilt or because he wishes to save the authorities from trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred for his search and capture. Anent the following matter, it is true that
Dominguez surrendered without the intention to acknowledge his guilt but he is still entitled
because he saved the authorities from trouble and expenses that would have been incurred for his
search and capture had he not surrendered. The phrase either or must be interpreted that even if
only one of the two are present, the accused may be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.

Raymond Dominguez then signed a waiver at the time of his surrender which placed him
under voluntary police protective custody of the Bulacan Police.

In People V. Fontabla, Supreme Court held that voluntarily surrendered himself to the
authorities. Article 13, subsection 7, of the Revised Penal Code, considers as mitigating
circumstance voluntary surrender to the authorities as well as voluntary confession of guilt
prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. Under the law, any of these facts
constitutes mitigating circumstance. Although these circumstances are considered mitigating
in the same subsection of article 13, when both are present they should have the effect of
mitigating the penalty as two independent circumstances. If any of them must mitigate the
penalty to a certain extent, when both are present they should produce this effect to a greater
extent.

Person in authority
A "person in authority" is one directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who
has the power to govern and execute the laws whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or governmental corporation, board or commission. A barrio captain and a
barangay chairman are also persons in authority. (Art. 152, RPC, as amended by P.D. No.
299)

Agent of the Person in Authority

An "agent of a person in authority" is a person, who, by direct provision of the law, or by
election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public
order and the protection and security of life and property and any person who comes to the
aid of persons in authority. (Art. 152, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1978)
In the case of People vs Yecla, 68 Phil. 740, 741

The accused presented himself in the municipal building to post the bond for his temporary
release, five days after he committed the crime of homicide and the issuance of his order of
arrest was also issued two days after. It was held that he is still entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.

The Revised Penal Code does not make any distinction among the various moments when the
surrender may occur. Also, the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the issuance
of the order of arrest. Thus, arguendo, even if there is already an issuance of order for the
arrest of Raymond Dominguez, then he presented himself to the authorities to post the bond
for his temporary release, it is in obedience to the order of arrest and was tantamount to
voluntary surrender to the authorities, entitling him of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.

On the other hand, under Par. 7 of the Revised Penal Code, voluntary confession of the
accuseds guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution
is also a mitigating circumstance in favor to the accused.

Thus, for the sake of discussion, the above accused Raymond Dominguez pleaded guilty for
his criminal liability, he may be entitled to a mitigating circumstance but the following
requisites must be present:

1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

2. That the confession of guilt was made in the open court, that is, before the
competent court that is to try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for
the prosecution.
In the case of People vs Gano, et al., G.R. No. 134373, 28 February 2001

For voluntary confession to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the same must not
only be made unconditionally but the accused must admit to the offense charged, i.e., robbery
with homicide in the present case, and not to either robbery or homicide only. Hence, if the
voluntary confession is conditional or qualified, it is not mitigating.

In connection with the case of Raymond Dominguez, in order to be recognized his plea of
guilty in his charge of car napping with homicide, both must be admitted by him that he
committed the offense charged to him. Not to either car napping or homicide only.

In the case of People vs De la Cruz, 63 Phil. 874, 876

The reasons of why the plea of guilty is mitigating that is because it is an act of repentance
and respect for the law, it indicates a moral disposition in the accused, which is favorable to
his reform.

The basis of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty is the
lesser perversity of the offender.
III. Recommendation or improvement of RPC or Special Laws in connection with the issue

According to Reyes, the basis of mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is the lesser
perversity of the offender.

Par. 7, Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code states:

That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority
or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution

The writers of the paper suggest that mitigating circumstance be applied in certain and possible
special laws, with penalty divisible by three periods, as well. There are two mitigating
circumstances abovementioned: (1) voluntary surrender to a person in authority; and (2) voluntary
confession of guilt before the prior court to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. It is
true that in special laws, guilt is not a requisite in mala prohibita, mere intention to perpetrate the
crime is sufficient to convict the accused of transgression of the law, thus, the second circumstance
cannot possibly be applied. While the first circumstance, which is voluntary surrender, may be
applied to mitigate penalties provided by special laws.

The reasons why either plea of guilty or voluntary surrender is mitigating: (1) it is an act of
repentance and respect for the law; and (2) it indicates a moral disposition in the accused, favorable
to his reform. (People v. De la Cruz, 63 Phil 874, 876) In addition, the surrender of the accused is
mitigating because it saves the authority trouble and expenses that would have been incurred for
his capture had he not surrendered. The intent of the provision is clear: the penalty of persons who,
after transgression of law have the intention to reform and save authorities trouble and expenses
for his capture, must be mitigated. The writers believe that the provision focuses on the act of
voluntarily surrendering ones self to the authorities with the intent of reformation and
consideration of the trouble and expenses that may be incurred for his capture, and not on what
kind of law was transgressed. A person who transgressed any law must have the chance to mitigate
his penalty through voluntary surrender, through the sound discretion of the judges and justices.
In consideration of the voluntary surrender or confession of an individual accused of committing
a crime, the writers would also recommend that there should be the issuance of strengthened
evidential standards that should be uniformly followed in courts. Such evidence gathered shall
undergo a thorough review process to determine its gravity. Of course in such process,
documentary evidence or statements from an objective third party shall be required to ensure the
validity of the mitigating circumstance that is being considered. In addition, the mitigating factors
that relate to the circumstances of the offender should also be taken in consideration.

Furthermore, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of the Voluntary surrender to a person in

authority or his agent should be amended into becoming a privileged mitigating circumstance for
the fact that the spontaneous manner of such voluntary surrender shows that the offender
acknowledged his guilt of committing such crime. Before it may be awarded to become a
privileged mitigating circumstance such elements must be present: (1) that the offender possesses
good moral character, (2) that the offense resulted to such impulse that it violates the offenders
dignity and such act of voluntary surrender did not arise from the intent only to avail such
mitigating circumstance and lastly, (3) that the offender showed concern to the injured party or
such actions of the offender showed great signs of remorse from doing such act.
REFERENCES:

Carjack-murder suspect: i bought gas to burn venson [2011, January 22], GMA
News. Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/
211267/carjack-murder-suspect-i-bought-gas-to-burn-venson/story/

Reyes-Estrope, C. (2017, September 01). Car theft leader convicted; judge hailed.
Retrieved September 01, 2017, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/178453/car-
theft-leader-convicted-judge-hailed

Suerte- Felipe, C., & Botial, J. (2011, January 24). Car trader murder: 9 charged
. Retrieved September 01, 2017, from
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/650547/car-trader-murder-9-charged