PEOPLE v OCO 412 SCRA 190

PROSECUTIONS CASE:Surviving victim Herminigildo Damuag on Nov 24, 1997, he was

driving his motorcycle with Alden Abiabi riding with him at the back. When they reached Pica
Lumber, a white car overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing him to slow down.
Another motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. From a distance
of 2-3meters, 1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close
succession. Damuag attempted to look at the tires of his motorcycle, thinking that they have
exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi pushed him with his body. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle and
slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. As Damuag was trying to
control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind
him. His motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter. Damuag was thrown off and hit the ground.
He stood up and realized that he was hit at the right side of his body. He then heard a burst of
gunfire from behind. Oco was at the back of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him but
missed. Damuag was able to run. However, the third motorcycle chased him. Upon reaching
the vicinity of Five Brothers restaurant, Damuag stopped because he could not pass anymore.
From a distance of about 4-5 meters, Oco again fired 2 more shots at Damuag.Damuag was
rushed to the Hospital. He survived the attack due to the timely medical attention given to him.
Abiabi did not survive the ambush. He sustained 8 gunshot wounds on the different parts of his
body. The prosecution theorized that the shooting incident was drug-related. The late Abiabi
was a known anti-drug advocate while the Oco was a suspected drug lord.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Oco claimed that on Nov 24, 1997, he played mahjong
from 3-9 pm. At around 9 pm, he went home and went out to look for his 5- year old son. Not
able to find his son, Oco proceeded to Sambagan to meet Boy Misa.. Oco also passed by the
Our Lady of Lourdes Chapel and noticed the door opened so he went in to look at the clothes of
the Virgin for he intended to change the Virgins clothes for the forthcoming fiesta celebration.
Upon entering the chapel, the appellant saw a group of women who informed him that the
scheduled meeting was postponed. Oco was seated at the cement floor for a few minutes when
he heard an unusual burst. He did not bother to investigate the origin or nature of the unusual
burst. He asked some people inside the chapel if they had seen Boy Misa but none of them did.
He went out of the chapel, proceeded to a store across the chapel, and inquired from a group of
persons milling around the store the whereabouts of Misa. The appellant proceeded home and
went to bed. His son and daughter soon arrived and slept with him. A few minutes later, his wife,
along with his sister-in-law and some neighbors, awakened him and told him that his kumpadre
and good friend, Abiabi, was shot, he was shocked upon learning the information because the
victim had no known enemy.The appellant was thus surprised when he learned that he was
implicated in the shooting of Alden. He and Abiabi were good neighbors and friends and he had
no motive to kill the victim.

ISSUE: The appreciation of VOLUNTARY SURRENDER as a mitigating circumstance.

HELD:The presence of the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle would have
raised the penalty to death if not for the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender which the trial court failed to appreciate. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated,
the following requisites should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2)
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latters agent; and (3) the
surrender was voluntary. Further, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it
shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. All these
requisites have been complied with in the case at bar. Immediately upon learning the issuance
warrant of arrest, and without having been served on him, Oco voluntarily surrendered himself.
Ocos testimony as to the circumstances of his voluntary surrender was never rebutted. He
Like any other common criminal, the appellant could have opted to go on hiding. But he chose
to surrender himself to the authorities and face the allegations leveled against him. True, he did
not admit his complicity to the crimes charged against him but he nonetheless spared the
government of time and expense. For this, he should be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.