Andrada v.

People (Tagle)
G.R. No. 135222, | Mar. 4, 2005 | J. Sandoval-Gutierrez | Voluntary Surrender
PETITIONER: Peter Andrada
RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines

DOCTRINE:
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a manner that it shows
the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt
or wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that would be necessarily incurred in his search and capture

Trial Court: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt: frustrated murder. Penalty: imprisonment of 8 years and 20 days as
MINIMUM to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days as MAXIMUM; to indemnify the sum of P3,000.00.

CA Ruling: AFFIRMED with modification. Imprisonment: Indeterminate penalty of 4 years and 2 mos of Prision
Correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 20 days of Prision Mayor as maximum.
CA found that the he is entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance of minority (17 yrs, 9mos old at that time)

SC Ruling: Petition denied. Affirmed CA decision.

ISSUES: W/N Peter Andrada is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. –NO.
FACTS: Evidence for the Prosecution:

1. On Sept 23, 1986 at 11:30pm. Sgt. Teodolfo Sumabong of the Philippine Constabulary received a call
from a certain Alcate requesting for police assistance. Alcate claimed that there are suspicious persons
outside his boarding house. Sumabong together with two other officers (Sgt. Gaces and Cpl. Ugerio) went
to the Alcate’s boarding house. But the suspicious persons have left already.
2. On the way back to the Camp (Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet). They dropped by a restua for a
snack.
3. While waiting, Peter Andrada approach Cpl. Ugerio and scolded him. Sgt. Sumabong, identifying himself
as PC officer, advised Andrada to go home as he was drunk. Andrada paid his bill and left.
4. However, while Sumabong was paying their bill, he heard Ugerio moaning in pain. Sumabong then saw
Andrada hacking Ugerio (already on the floor) on the head with bolo. Andrada with his companion ran
away. Sumabong chased them but to no avail.
5. Ugerio was brought to the hospital. The incident was reported to the police. Andrada was arrested in a
waiting shed at Camdas Road. The arresting officer, together with Andrada recovered the bolo in the
restaurant.
6. A neuro-surgery consultant found that victim suffered 2 major injuries: a scalping avulsion on the
victim’s skull and depressed fracture on the skull. Both wounds were fatal and would’ve caused the death
if it had not been for timely medical treatment. The victim remained incapable to recall visual
information.

Andrada’s Version
1. Interposed self-defense and invoked the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
2. He and his friend were drinking beer, when three armed military men occupied the next table. Without
any provocation, two of the officers approached him, slapped his face and pointed guns to his head. They
threatened him because he was “so boastful.” He was then dragged out of the restaurant. Fearful that he
might be killed, Andrada pulled out his bolo and swung at the two military men. He did not see if he hit
any. And ran to his house.
3. On his way to surrender to the police, he met his mother accompanied by a policeman. They then
proceeded to the police sub-station where he surrendered.

 Andrada filed a petition invoking, among others, that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
should have been appreciated in his favor.

RATIO:

Evidence for the prosecution shows that petitioner, after attacking the victim, ran away. He was apprehended
by responding police officers in the waiting shed at the corner of Cambas Road and Magsaysay Avenue. For
voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a manner that it
shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that would be necessarily incurred in
his search and capture. Here, the surrender was not spontaneous. – Petition denied, CA decision and
resolution affirmed.

NOTE: He was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, but not the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.

OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER (not in syllabus, nasa syllabus lang yung voluntary surrender)

(1) whether petitioner’s right to due process was violated; (2) whether his plea of self-defense is in order; (3)
whether the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide.

1. Andrada contends that his counsel failed to present all the witnesses that could testify his innocence, to present his
medical certificate, notify him to attend the hearing, and to submit a memorandum.

OSG counters that there was no violation of Petitioner’s right to due process. Andrada was represented by counsel of
his choice. If the latter’s performance and competence fell short of petitioner’s expectations, he should not blame
Court. The petitioner was present during the hearing. If he believed that his counsel was not competent, he could
have secured the services of a new counsel.

The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction is that a client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. Mistakes of
attorneys as to the competency of a witness, the sufficiency, relevancy or irrelevancy of certain evidence, the proper
defense or the burden of proof, failure to introduce evidence, to summon witnesses, and to argue the case, unless
they prejudice the client and prevent him from properly presenting his case, do not constitute gross incompetence or
negligence. The court held that Andrada’s right to due process was not violated.

2. The court find that the petitioner has not adequately discharged his burden of proving the elements of self-
defense. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that at the time he hacked the victim, Ugerio was still
seated while Andrada. was behind him. There was no unlawful aggression(requisite for self defense). His version
that he was attacked first was not duly proven. Hence, self defense cannot be invoked.

3. We agree with the lower courts that the petitioner planned to kill the victim with treachery in mind. At that time,
the victim was seated. The attack was so sudden and unexpected that the victim had no opportunity either to avert
the attack or to defend himself. Considering that petitioner had performed all the acts of execution which would
have resulted in the death of the victim, had it not been for timely medical assistance, the crime committed is
frustrated murder, not frustrated homicide.