MANILA — The Supreme Court of the Philippines has clarified that an offender’s “voluntary surrender” as a mitigating circumstance should be assessed based on the individual’s true intent and the totality of circumstances, rather than strictly following technical timelines.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan dated August 12, 2025, the high court granted the petition of a man convicted of bigamy, significantly reducing his prison sentence after lower courts had previously declined to recognize his surrender as voluntary.

The case arose when the petitioner discovered an outstanding arrest record while applying for a clearance at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Despite being instructed to return a week later for verification, he voluntarily came back, and upon confirmation of a 13-year-old arrest warrant, told the officer, “masuko na lang ako” (I will surrender) and sought help posting bail.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals, however, classified the encounter as an “arrest” because the man was already inside a government building, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

The high court disagreed, emphasizing that the petitioner’s decision to return to the NBI demonstrated a genuine willingness to cooperate with authorities.

“The Court cannot ignore such admissions, especially in light of the requirement of spontaneity in voluntary surrenders as mitigating circumstances, as will now be presently discussed along with the other relevant requirements as laid out by law and jurisprudence,” the ruling read.

It added that the mere existence of an arrest warrant, or a long lapse of time since the alleged crime, does not automatically negate a voluntary surrender. The Court highlighted that unless there is evidence the offender actively evaded the law, their choice to come forward should be evaluated broadly.

“Juxtaposing all these to [petitioner] immediate, relatively unprompted, unconditional, and respectful capitulation upon learning of the arrest warrant against him, the Court sees every reason to welcome and appreciate the situation as one indeed of voluntary surrender constitutive of a mitigating circumstance as contemplated and stated in the Revised Penal Code,” the ruling stated.

The Court further noted that the petitioner spared authorities from additional efforts to locate him, despite the time taken for him to be informed of the warrant and for the warrant to be served.

The Supreme Court also cautioned lower courts against acting as “cold-hearted automatons” or “soulless supercomputers,” urging judges to consider both legal principles and practical realities.

“While indeed the burden of proof is upon the shoulders of the accused to prove his or her entitlement to a mitigating circumstance, trial courts should not be too callous in their ultimate consideration of the facts relating to such issues, and this can actually lead to situations where trial courts assume facts not in evidence, such as when both the trial and appellate courts here basically assumed as proven that [petitioner] was in effect a fugitive without any offered evidentiary support to support such conclusion,” the ruling added.